Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — SHIPBUILDING

Nuclear Propulsion

Mr. D. Price: asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty whether he will make a statement on his Department's future policy for the development of nuclear marine propulsion.

The Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing): My noble Friend's Explanatory Statement indicated that we are putting a substantial effort into research and development on propulsion machinery for nuclear submarines; and the shore-based prototype test reactor at Dounreay will provide essential facilities for the development of British submarine reactor equipments. Studies are also being made of possible applications of nuclear power to surface warships. The Admiralty continues to take an interest in the studies of nuclear propulsion systems for merchant ships which are now being made under the sponsorship of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport.

Mr. Price: Would not my hon. Friend agree that nuclear propulsion will eventually replace steam as inevitably as steam replaced sail? Will he ensure that research into these possibilities has the very highest priority in the Admiralty?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: I will certainly bear in mind what my hon. Friend has said and draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport to his remarks.

Dame Irene Ward: May I have an assurance that all this knowledge which is to be developed by the Admiralty will be widely spread all over the country and not concentrated in one area?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: There is no desire within the Admiralty to have a closed shop on nuclear knowledge. The more widely it is spread, the more competition will exist, and I think that that will be better for the industry and for the Admiralty as well.

Mr. Shinwell: May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether the Admiralty is in consultation with the Chamber of Shipping? As he is well aware, ship-owners are concerned about the possibility of adapting nuclear propulsion to merchant ships.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: No, Sir. We are in touch with the Ministry of Transport, and I have no doubt that the Minister of Transport is in touch with the Chamber of Shipping.

Orders

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty the principle on which he acts in allocating shipbuilding and ship-repairing and other orders by his Department to Scottish and English shipyards respectively; what regard he has to the state of unemployment in these yards; and how many such orders, together with the value in money and tonnage, have been allocated to Scottish and English shipyards respectively during each of the last ten years.

Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing: Contracts for building and repairing warships are placed with the shipyards best able to give timely and economical completion. The employment position and economy are among the factors considered.
Full details of shipbuilding and ship-repairing orders as between England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are not available. For shipbuilding, the total United Kingdom orders during the last ten years have been 417 ships, totalling 325,000 tons valued at £444 million. Of these, orders for 27 per cent. of the ships, 34 per cent. of the tonnage and 32 per cent. of the value went to Scottish yards.

Mr. Hughes: As a matter of principle, is not it unwise, in these days of possible bomb warfare, to concentrate these orders in the south of England and the south of Scotland, as is being done? Is not that a very good reason for sending some of these orders to Aberdeen—

Mr. Strachey: And Dundee.

Mr. Hughes: —and Dundee and the Moray Firth, but particularly to Aberdeen, which is a good port whose workers, who are unemployed, have a good technique and fine traditions in shipbuilding? Will the Minister consider the points that I have put to him with a view to ameliorating the unemployment situation in Aberdeen?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: I do not think that 33 per cent. is a bad share of the amount of orders which are going, which is what Scotland has enjoyed. If one refers to Aberdeen alone, as the hon. and learned Gentleman did, one notices that, of the two shipbuilding and ship-repairing firms concerned, employment in Alexander Hall's of Aberdeen, as compared with June, 1951, is exactly the same in January, 1960, while employment at Hall Russell's of Aberdeen is exactly double what it was in June, 1951. So I do not think that the hon. and learned Gentleman has suffered as a result of our administration.

Mr. Strachey: Will the hon. Gentleman consider Dundee fully on a level with Aberdeen?

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY

Surplus Ships (Disposal)

Mr. Brewis: asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty if, when disposing of surplus ships, he will give priority to dismantling firms operating or intending to operate in areas of unemployment listed under the Local Employment Bill, such as Cairnryan, near Stranraer.

Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing: No, Sir. The current policy is for Government ships to be disposed of for scrapping through the British Iron and Steel Corporation (Salvage) Ltd. These arrangements are, however, at present being reviewed.

Mr. Brewis: Is my hon. Friend aware that his Department could make a very considerable contribution here to curing local unemployment? Will he try to bring his policy into line with other Government Departments?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: I am well aware of the point which my hon. Friend has made, but I think that we have to look after the taxpayers' interest at the same time. It is a combination of factors.

Stornoway Airfield (N.A.T.O. Infrastructure Programme)

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty if he will make a statement about the proposed establishment of a North Atlantic Treaty Organisation base in the Isle of Lewis.

Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing: It has been proposed to make a substantial development of Stornoway airfield as a charge to the N.A.T.O. infrastructure programme, so that in the event of war it could be used by N.A.T.O. aircraft. No decision has yet been reached.
We are aware of objections from local residents and, for this and other reasons, we are anxious to be sure that the choice of Stornoway is essential before we embark on any development.

Mr. MacMillan: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, quite apart from my personal views on this, the main anxieties are about the very large influx of personnel, possibly including Spaniards and West Germans nowadays—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—into this area, and the threat to the whole character and way of life of a small community of the islands, and secondly—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speech."]—the proximity of the base to the only concentration of population in that part of the north Highlands, and finally, the inability of the Minister of Defence to say that there will not be stockpiling of nuclear weapons in that area? Those are the main objections and anxieties. [HON. MEMBERS: "Speech."] Will the hon. Gentleman keep them in mind?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: I will bear in mind the points the hon. Member has made, but I think it right to say that the construction of such a base, if it should be possible to go ahead with it, would not be done by people from overseas but by British people, and that it would give valuable employment.

H.M.S. "Vanguard" (Break-up Value)

Mr. Shinwell: asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty the estimated breakup value of H.M.S. "Vanguard".

Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing: I cannot give a precise statement because we are considering disposal of the ship following


competitive tendering. Any opinion of her value expressed publicly at this stage might prejudice the tenders.

Mr. Shinwell: While I appreciate the point the hon. Gentleman has made and agree with what he said, may I ask whether we can be assured that when the time comes when the tenders are considered and the contract is fixed the House will be informed of what the Admiralty have received as a result of the break-up of this vessel?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: My noble Friend has no desire to keep these matters secret—

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Why should he?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: —but the nearest measure we have of what sum may be realised is what is being realised for the King George V, the last battleship to be broken up.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: How much?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: Although it is not exactly comparable because the prices of scrap steel have changed enormously during the period, she realised about £500,000.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: And was of more value as scrap.

Marine W. Groves

Mr. V. Yates: asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty if he is aware that the continued absence of 18198 Marine W. Groves from home is causing anxiety to his parents at Great Russell Street, Birmingham; and, in view of the fact that application for compassionate discharge was made over five months ago and that medical evidence in support of the application was submitted nearly three months ago, if he will now consider discharging the man without further delay.

Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing: An officer or rating is given immediate compassionate release when release is the only remedy for serious hardship at home. Marine Groves' parents have four other grown-up children. Marine Groves' application was therefore rejected as it did not match up to the criterion.
My noble Friend is considering whether the home circumstances have changed so as to warrant discharge.

Mr. Yates: I appreciate that, but I have been communicating with the hon. Gentleman's noble Friend for over five months. The man said he had not made another application. He has been to his commandant, and I have a letter from him, which I will pass on to the hon. Gentleman, in which he believes that it is only his presence at home which can save his mother. Both his mother and his father are very seriously affected by their health. [Laughter.] I do not know how this is a laughing matter. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] These parents are seriously ill with blood pressure, both of them.

Mr. Speaker: Would the hon. Gentleman resume his supplementary question, because this is the time for Questions?

Mr. Yates: My question to the Civil Lord is, will he consider the doctor's evidence on this, and the fact that there are no children at home who can take care of the father and mother, and that the boy himself believes, to use his own words, that it is only his presence which can save their health, especially his mother's health?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: My noble Friend is looking at this again, but I would prefer always the application or re-application to come from the Service man rather than from his parents or Members of Parliament. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] We have to be certain that on balance the young boy also wants to leave a career where he is doing extremely well. I will certainly bear in mind what the hon. Gentleman said. Perhaps I could have that letter which he has received, to give to my noble Friend.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY

Boots

Mr. Dodds: asked the Secretary of State for War (1) how many of the 1,250,000 pairs of surplus Army boots were allowed to be sold to the public in this country; what was the average price per pair obtained for them; and how this compares with the average price per pair sold for export;
(2) how much has been realised by the sale of 1,250,000 pairs of surplus Army boots; and how this compares with the cost of the boots to his Department.

The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Christopher Soames): The whole of this surplus, amounting to 1,043,000 pairs has now been disposed of. They fetched £576,000, an average of 11s. a pair. There was a fairly wide range of prices, according to condition, between 6s. and 15s. The original cost of the boots was about £1·6 million.
About 5,000 damaged pairs were permitted to be sold in this country and another 43,000 were sold here without permission. The average price of all these was 10s. a pair.
I must add that I have disclosed these prices because of the interest which has been focused on this particular case. The disclosure should not be taken to prejudice the well-established custom whereby prices obtained in the sale of Government surplus stores are not normally made public.

Mr. Dodds: But why does the Secretary of State for War say it is £1·6 million when in reply to Question after Question for months it has been given as £2 million? Is not a scandalous state of affairs revealed by the Public Accounts Committee, that most of the boots should never have been ordered? Does it not reveal that more than £1 million—£1½ million—have been lost through blunders? I am now asking, who has been sacked or reprimanded for this terrible blunder, and a loss of an amount which is six or seven times the amount the Government are giving for World Refugee Year?

Mr. Soames: As to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, it is not the full 1,250,000 which were surplus. Use has been found for a number of them. That accounts for the figure of £1·6 million. As to the second part of the supplementary question, the hon. Gentleman has been told before that more than 1 million pairs became surplus not because of any over-ordering but because of a deliberate decision to reduce mobilisation stocks as the size of the Army was reduced.

Boat Stores, Barry (Transfer)

Mr. Gower: asked the Secretary of State for War if he will reconsider his decision to move the Boat Stores from Barry to the Portsmouth area; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Soames: No, Sir. The reasons for the move, which have been given in detail to my hon. Friend, derive from the need to concentrate in one place the units of the Water Transport Group, R.A.S.C.

Mr. Gower: Is not this decision somewhat at variance with the general trend of the Government's policy, which is to retain industry and employing agencies in areas where they are most needed? On that account will my right hon. Friend possibly give this some fresh attention?

Mr. Soames: No, I fear I cannot, inasmuch as we feel that it is necessary for efficiency to concentrate this group together, and the only place where the group can be concentrated is at Portsmouth. As for the question of employment, about 80 people will be redundant, but posts have been found elsewhere for the great majority of those not due to retire, and I believe that only a very few indeed—I hope, not more than 10—will in fact have to be discharged.

Soldiers (Funeral Expenses)

Mr. Pavitt: asked the Secretary of State for War the amount paid by the Government towards the funeral expenses of soldiers who die in the course of their duties; when that sum was fixed; and what arrangements are made to review it.

Mr. Soames: The Government pay the whole cost of military funerals conducted by the Services. If the family of a deceased soldier prefer to arrange for a private funeral they receive a grant of £10, or £5 if a coffin is provided by the Service authorities. Within the United Kingdom the Army also bears the cost of returning the body home. The grants were fixed in 1943. It is not intended to review them, but an additional grant of £25 has since become payable under the National Insurance Acts.

Mr. Pavitt: In view of the fact that the cost of living has changed since 1943, will the Secretary of State please take steps to have a quick review of this? He knows of the case I recently referred to him of a constituent of mine, and that in that case the sum of £5 was given. Will the right hon. Gentleman please have another look at this question in view of the changed circumstances?

Mr. Soames: No, because the National Insurance Act payment is, of course, made, as it is to civilians, and above that there is a payment from the Army.

Mr. J. Griffiths: Will the right hon. Gentleman recollect that the National Insurance death benefit is a benefit for which the contributor himself contracts and pays, and that it is not given by the State?

Mr. Soames: What I am saying is that the soldier's family, over and above what a civilian gets, get a small extra payment if they choose to have a private funeral.

Woolwich Arsenal

Mr. Mayhew: asked the Secretary of State for War when he will publish the report of the Hutchinson Committee on the future of Woolwich Arsenal; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Soames: I understand that the Woolwich Review Committee expects to present its report to me very soon. I shall be glad to give what information I can as soon as the Committee's recommendations have been considered. I do not expect to publish the report itself.

Mr. Mayhew: What procedure does the Minister envisage, when the report comes out, for consultation with all concerned?

Mr. Soames: I should like to see the report first and think about it. I have not seen the report yet, but we have a precedent to follow in the Perrott Report which came out in 1953.

Camp, Hampshire (Incident)

Mr. Janner: asked the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been drawn to the reopening of the sergeants mess at midnight, and the consequent drunkenness there, at the camp in Hampshire, referred to in a case which was tried in the Winchester Assizes last July; what inquiry has been held in respect of the position; and what steps have been taken to avoid a recurrence of such incidents.

Mr. Soames: An inquiry was held by the commanding officer last August. As a result, two sergeants were posted away

from the unit; one of them was reduced in rank.

Mr. Janner: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many parents are very deeply disturbed about this incident, among others—an incident in which there was a drunken orgy and a girl aged 16 was badly beaten up? What steps is the right hon. Gentleman taking to ensure that this kind of thing shall not occur anywhere else? Is he aware that it is extremely serious from the point of view of young people going into National Service?

Mr. Soames: I do not want to underestimate what happened here. It was a breach of discipline, and disciplinary action has been taken. At the same time, I should not like to exaggerate it. The total takings in the sergeants' mess that night were £3 10s., so I do not think it was a drunken orgy.

Rocket Range, Uist

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: asked the Secretary of State for War if he was satisfied with the success of all the 1959 Corporal missile firing exercises at the Uist rocket range; what firing programme is planned for 1960; what other operational use is to be made of the range area apart from this disposal of stocks of obsolete missiles; and if he will state the total sum spent to date on the construction and development of the range and on the associated works and activities.

Mr. Soames: Yes, Sir. Last year's training programme was successful and another will take place this year. The Corporal missile is not obsolete. The sum spent on the range over the years has been £1½ million.

Mr. MacMillan: Does not the right hon. Gentleman recall that the Corporal firing in which he took part was a damp squib? Apart from that, is he aware that the civilian compensation by way of employment and development, which was promised very definitely by the Minister of Defence at the time when the project was started, has not materialised and that the employment is next to nothing at all? Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that this is a costly scheme which is producing no result? Surely that is generally acknowledged?

Mr. Soames: I have not in mind any promise made, but if the hon. Member makes the information available to me, I will certainly have a look at it.

Territorial Centre, S.W.4

Mr. Lipton: asked the Secretary of State for War how long the Territorial Centre in King's Avenue, S.W.4, has been vacant; and when it will be reoccupied.

Mr. Soames: The centre has been vacant for four years. It is to be reoccupied this year.

Mr. Lipton: Is not this a deplorable example of Government waste and bungling? Is the Minister aware that, according to a letter which I have had from the War Office, the centre might not be needed for another year or two? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these premises could have been leased or let for some quite useful purpose, instead of their being allowed to stand idle for such a long time?

Mr. Soames: It is a question of the size of the Territorial Army, which has been built up over the years. We did not need the centre some years back but we knew that it would be needed. We could not tell the exact year, but this is the year in which it will be occupied.

Dartmoor National Park (Yes Tor)

Mr. Hayman: asked the Secretary of State for War the length of the military road to the top of Yes Tor in the Dartmoor National Park; how many tons of stone, broken concrete and gravel were used in its construction; and the cost of the operation.

Mr. Soames: I would refer the hon. Member to my Answer of 27th January. The track is about 1,500 yards long. Between 40 and 50 tons of broken stone from local quarries were used in its repair, at a cost of about £50. The work was done by War Department staff.

Mr. Hayman: Is the Minister aware that in two previous Answers given in the House recently it was said that the road was not metalled but now he admits that it is? Has he seen the photograph in the Western Morning News of 21st December, 1959, which shows a motor car

at the top of the road and near to the top of the Tor which is the highest hill in the south of England and the West Country? What does the right hon. Gentleman intend to do about it?

Mr. Soames: I am afraid that I have not had the advantage enjoyed by the hon. Member of seeing the photograph on 21st December, 1959. I am informed that if the road had been metalled, not 50 tons but 750 tons of stone would have been necessary. What has happened to the track is that the sides have been shored up and the holes filled in to make it traversable by a Land Rover.

Mr. Hayman: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to bear in mind that this is in the middle of a National Park and that the road scars the hill-side?

Mr. Soames: This track has always been in existence. We have improved it so that we can get the Land Rover up it, and the object is to lower the flag at the top of the Tor as soon as possible after firing has ceased.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE

Aberdeen (Facilities)

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Postmaster-General if he is aware of the inadequate postal facilities in the Northfield, Mastrick and Cairncry districts of Aberdeen, that these districts are extensive, hilly and thickly populated, and that these conditions make difficult, especially in winter, business and social life for the residents there, especially the aged; if he has yet completed his inquiries into these conditions; and if he will now have them remedied before winter advances further.

The Assistant Postmaster-General (Miss Mervyn Pike): I have carefully considered all the points mentioned by the hon. and learned Member; but I still believe that, with the opening of a new sub-office on 4th January on the south west border of the Mastrick area, postal facilities in the districts in question are adequate.

Mr. Hughes: Is the hon. Lady aware that this matter has been hanging fire for a long time and that when I put a similar Question some time ago it was suggested that the urgent need then, which is still an urgent need now, could


be met by the provision of a mobile post office? Will the hon. Lady consider that now as a temporary alleviation?

Miss Pike: We are considering all these questions at the present time.

Brentford

Mr. Dudley Smith: asked the Postmaster-General if he is aware that letters posted to and from the Brentford area frequently take longer than twenty-four hours in transmission; and if he will inquire into the cause of such delays.

Miss Pike: From time to time complaints have been received of delay to letters posted to and from the Brentford area. It has not always been possible to find out precisely the reason for the delay but there have been cases of missending to a wrong office. My inquiries do not suggest that the service generally in the Brentford area is inferior to that given elsewhere. I am looking into the specific examples which I received from my hon. Friend this morning.

Mr. Smith: In thanking my hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask her to consult the representatives of Brentford Chamber of Commerce, who have taken up this matter over a period of months, and may I also ask her whether there is any possibility of an improvement in the service as a whole?

Mr. Dudley Smith: asked the Postmaster-General when he will be in a position to open the new Brentford post office; and if he proposes to use it as a major sorting office for that area of Middlesex.

Miss Pike: The new office should be open by November at the latest. It will be used to handle correspondence and parcels for delivery in the Brentford area, but not for other areas.

Mr. Smith: May I ask my hon. Friend if she will reconsider this matter, because we feel that it is linked up very much with the question of the alleged delays in mails in the Brentford area?

Miss Pike: Correspondence for delivery in Brentford is received at Brentford in direct mails. On the other hand, correspondence posted in Brentford is taken to Hounslow for sorting and dispatch. This arrangement causes no

delay in forwarding and I can assure my hon. Friend that it gives the greatest and the most efficient service at the present time.

Sir J. M. Barrie

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Postmaster-General if he will issue a special postage stamp in celebration of the centenary of Sir J. M. Barrie.

Miss Pike: No, Sir.

Mr. Hughes: Does the hon. Lady realise that if Barrie had been a American, a German or a Russian there would have been a special postage stamp? How long is the British Post Office to remain the most reactionary and retrogressive in the world in refusing to adopt a stamp policy which would give an opportunity to stamp collectors and bring additional revenue to the Post Office?

Miss Pike: I think the hon. Gentleman knows what is our stamp policy. He probably agrees with Barrie, if I may quote from his rectorial address on courage to the students of St. Andrews, that you should never ascribe to your opponent motives meaner than your own. [Laughter.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is a jovial Wednesday, but we really must have a little more quiet. Mr. Emrys Hughes.

Tercentenary (Celebrations)

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Postmaster-General how he proposes to celebrate the tercentenary of the establishment of post offices in Great Britain and the appointment of a Postmaster-General.

Miss Pike: We propose to celebrate the tercentenary of the Charles II Act of 1660 establishing the "General Letter Office" by the issue in the summer of special 3d. and 1s. 3d. stamps and by the display of a series of posters showing how the mail was delivered at various times during the 300 years. These scenes will be painted by famous artists and the theme will be the need for a correct address in order that mail can be delivered quickly.
In addition, we have a stand at the Ideal Home Exhibition featuring the historical development of the postal services over the past 300 years.
The celebrations are not intended to mark the appointment of a Postmaster-General.

Mr. Hughes: But is the Minister aware that I listened with great patience to her very long Answer in the hope of hearing at the end that the Post Office would issue a stamp of Robert Burns? Does this mean that we are likely to have a postage stamp of the Postmaster-General, and if so, will she let the Postmaster-General have it for England and give us Burns for Scotland?

Mr. Janner: May I ask the hon. Lady to realise that the old-age pensioners at Mowmacre Hill, Leicester, will not participate in any celebrations about the tercentenary of the establishment of a post office until they have a post office of their own?

Miss Pike: One of our difficulties is that the Post Office services to the community are always developing. Three hundred years ago the Post Office was not paying pensions and allowances to people in the country as a whole. At the present time we are doing everything we can to meet the growing demands of the community.

North-East Scotland (Emergency Transport)

Mr. Hendry: asked the Postmaster-General if he will consider, in conjunction with the appropriate Defence Minister, the institution of emergency helicopter services to ensure essential postal services for towns and villages cut off by snowstorms in north-east Scotland.

Miss Pike: Arrangements already exist for all emergency transport provided in such circumstances to be used where appropriate for conveyance of mails, but emergency helicopter services could not be justified solely for mail purposes.

Mr. Hendry: Is my hon. Friend aware that the tremendous efforts of her staff in those very difficult circumstances are much appreciated, and will she give an assurance that she will use every possible scientific device to help them in their work?

Miss Pike: Yes, Sir. We do our best, but we believe that in severe conditions helicopters may be required for matters

of life and death, and it would be wrong as well as expensive to try to use them to overcome relatively short delays to mail traffic.

Islington (Deliveries)

Mr. Fletcher: asked the Postmaster-General if he is aware that in some parts of Islington the morning post is not delivered until after 9 o'clock; and if he will arrange for postal deliveries to be made earlier than this.

Miss Pike: I am sorry that some of the deliveries in Islington have been running late. I am looking into this and will write to the hon. Member.

Mr. Fletcher: Would the Minister think it might be a convenient part of the celebrations of the tercentenary of the Post Office to make arrangements in the Metropolis for all letters to be delivered at a reasonable hour in the morning?

Miss Pike: It is our general aim to deliver all letters by 9 o'clock. While in general this is achieved, I realise that there are places in Islington where we are not doing that. As I have said, we are looking into the matter and we hope we shall do better.

Oral Answers to Questions — WIRELESS AND TELEVISION

Satellite Stations

Mr. P. Browne: asked the Postmaster-General if he will expedite his plans for installing low-power satellite transmitters in areas remote from main transmitters in order to improve television reception.

The Postmaster-General (Mr. Reginald Bevins): The B.B.C. is pressing on as fast as it can with the fourteen television satellite stations announced on 24th June, 1959. It is also preparing its plans for the next stage of its scheme.
The I.T.A. is still busy completing its main network stations which include stations to serve South West England. The I.T.A. tells me that it is not yet in a position to propose plans for smaller stations in areas not adequately served at present.

Mr. Browne: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that we pay exactly


the same price for our television licences as do those in other parts of the country but that reception in our area is extremely bad? Is he aware that, to say the least, it is extremely frustrating particularly when one wants to watch such a show as the "Television Toppers"? Would my right hon. Friend please try to expedite the provision of this satellite station?

Mr. Bevins: Yes, Sir, but so far I have not had proposals from the B.B.C. affecting that area. I realise that reception is bad.

Mr. Watkins: Can the Postmaster-General say how many stations which were mentioned last June are already in operation?

Mr. Bevins: To the best of my knowledge, I do not think that any have been completed. They take 12 to 18 months to put up.

Mr. Watkins: May I ask the Postmaster-General again—

Hon. Members: Oh.

Mr. Watkins: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware—

Hon. Members: Oh.

Mr. Speaker: These exclamations of enthusiasm do not assist progress with Questions.

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: On a point of order.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Watkins) is in the middle of asking a question.

Mr. Watkins: I hope, Mr. Speaker, that I am not one of those who are too enthusiastic in that sense, but is it not right that I should be allowed to ask a question of the Postmaster-General and inquire whether my constituents can see the right hon. Gentleman in the House some time?

Mr. Speaker: I wish that the hon. Member would get on with the question.

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: On a point of order. It is extremely difficult to ask supplementary questions because of the bad behaviour of hon. Members on the third bench opposite.

Mr. Speaker: Do not let us have competition in bad behaviour. Let us progress.

Mr. Watkins: Could not the Postmaster-General get the B.B.C. to expedite the provision of some of these stations about which an announcement was made last June? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a satellite station in my constituency was mentioned then but no work has been started on it?

Mr. Bevins: The announcement was made by my predecessor in the middle of 1959, but the B.B.C. is getting on with this as quickly as it can.

Programmes

Mr. Bence: asked the Postmaster-General what direction he has given to the British Broadcasting Corporation under Article 15 (4) of the Licence and Agreement to refrain from broadcasting programmes which project, by television and sound radio, the taking of alcoholic drinks in plays, films and variety shows, in view of the increasing tendency to include such matter in there entertainments.

Mr. George Craddock: asked the Postmaster-General if he is aware of the increasing frequency of scenes of drinking and constant invitations to drink, in the programmes broadcast by both the British Broadcasting Corporation and the Independent Television Authority; and, in view of this emphasis, which is detrimental to the moral fibre of the younger generation, if he will use his powers under Section 15 (4) of the Licence and Agreement and Section 9 (2) of the Television Act, 1954, to require the British Broadcasting Corporation and the Independent Television Authority to refrain from broadcasting programmes including such matters.

Mr. Bevins: Programme content is a matter for the broadcasting organizations. No directions on the subject raised by the hon. Members have been issued by me and I see no reason to intervene.

Mr. Bence: Notwithstanding the fact that it is well known that the liquor used at the B.B.C. is nothing more harmless than cold tea, does not the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that it is bad continually to project into every


home the practice of inviting a guest or a visitor to have a drink, sometimes before they leave to drive a car?

Mr. Bevins: No, Sir. I disagree entirely with the hon. Gentleman. This is a matter for the B.B.C. and for the I.T.A. Both organisations assure me that they watch the alcoholic content, such as it is, of their programmes very carefully.

Mr. Craddock: Why will not the Minister use the powers he has under the 1954 Act to protect the public and the younger generation against these continuing unfortunate scenes? Furthermore, may I ask if he will act in this case, because I have received fifty-four complaints from all parts of the country against the recurrent drinking scenes shown by the B.B.C. and the I.T.A.?

Mr. Bevins: No, Sir. I do not seriously believe that the moral fibre of the younger generation is in any way weakened when they see an actor on television taking a drink of cold tea or coloured water.

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Postmaster-General if he will give a direction under Section 9 (2) of the Television Act, 1954, requiring the authority to refrain from broadcasting programmes which create enmity towards other nations with which the United Kingdom is trying to secure peace, such as "The Invisible Man" series.

Mr. Bevins: No, Sir.

Mr. Allaun: Is the Minister aware that the I.T.A. has now admitted that six of the films in this series have some kind of cold war theme? Is it right that under the guise of entertainment this vicious propaganda, which is produced and slanted with an eye to the sale of films to American T.V. corporations, should be transmitted week after week to millions of unsuspecting homes?

Mr. Bevins: The hon. Gentleman's Question suggests that "The Invisible Man" series creates enmity towards other nations. I have myself asked a considerable number of people if this series has that effect on them and they have all looked at me in bewilderment. The fact is that this is a series of spy

stories. They are pure fiction, and how anyone who sees a series featuring an invisible man can regard it as other than fiction, I do not pretend to know.

Broadcasting (Future)

Mr. Mayhew: asked the Postmaster-General the terms of reference and membership of the proposed commission of inquiry into the future of broadcasting.

Mr. Bevins: If and when the Government decide upon such a course, the House would, of course, be informed. No such decision has been made.

Mr. Mayhew: But will not the Minister agree that it is essential to have a committee of inquiry before the new licences for television broadcasting are issued?

Mr. Bevins: Yes, Sir, that is one of possibilities which are being looked at.

Colour Television

Mr. Janner: asked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that it is now estimated that there are 500,000 colour television sets in use in the United States of America; and what are the factors still stopping the supply of adequate colour television service in Great Britain.

Mr. Bevins: Yes, Sir, but there are more than 50 million monochrome receivers in the United States. Our main problem—and it is a universal problem—is the production of a colour receiver at an economic price. We also have to determine the colour system and the definition standards to be used.

Mr. Janner: Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that we are not as far advanced in these matters as America? Is he not prepared to do something about expeditition in this direction?

Mr. Bevins: Indeed, yes, but I was pointing out that only about 1 per cent. of the households in the United States have colour television. The whole matter of line definition and colour is currently being examined by the Television Advisory Committee, whose report I expect to receive quite soon and which will be placed in the Library.

New Transmitter, West Cornwall

Mr. Hayman: asked the Postmaster-General when the British Broadcasting Corporation expects to be able to provide the new television and very high frequency transmitter for west Cornwall.

Mr. Bevins: The B.B.C. has chosen a site and hopes to start work shortly. It estimates that it will then take about eighteen months to complete the station.

Mr. Hayman: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for that reply, may I inquire whether he will ask the B.B.C. to do all it can to expedite the provision of this transmitter, because reception in places in west Cornwall is very bad.

Mr. Bevins: Yes, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — TELEPHONE SERVICE

General Practitioners (Calls to Hospitals)

Mr. Pavitt: asked the Postmaster-General if he will exempt the local telephone calls of general practitioners to hospitals from the revision of rates, which proposes that such calls will be on a timed basis for charging purposes.

Mr. Bevins: The hon. Member no doubt has in mind the subscriber trunk dialling tariff under which all calls will be charged for in units of 2d., the amount of time so bought depending on the distance. With this system, many local calls will be charged 2d. instead of 3d. I am afraid it is technically impossible to exempt, from timing, local calls from or to particular installations.

Mr. Pavitt: Will the right hon. Gentleman have another look at the technical difficulties involved, in view of the fact that already we have established a precedent in that other emergency calls, under 999, are exempt from payment altogether? Does he realise the terrific burden this will place on general practitioners in trying to place people urgently in local hospitals? It is impossible for a general practitioner to ask a hospital to ring back, and he often needs to ring three or four hospitals. Until he has his first answer it is impossible to carry the inquiry further. Will the right hon. Gentleman please see

if he can overcome the technical difficulties, which I am quite sure can be adjusted on the accounting system even if these calls are originally timed?

Mr. Bevins: I appreciate the peculiar position of doctors under this new system, but I am advised that the technical difficulties of making this differentiation are insuperable. I am, however, willing to have a look at this again, if the hon. Member will leave it with me.

Mr. G. Brown: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that doctors are not the only people who use their telephones for purposes of social services calls? If he is to look at this matter again, will he also consider it from the point of view of other people, such as M.P.s, trade union officials and others who have to use the telephone for social services?

Mr. Bevins: The case of doctors is a very special one in so far as they often have to wait for connections with wards in hospitals.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE

Vulcan and Victor Aircraft

Sir A. V. Harvey: asked the Secretary of State for Air when he expects the deliveries of the Vulcan Mark II and Victor Mark II to be completed.

The Secretary of State for Air (Mr. George Ward): I cannot at present add to the information on Vulcan II and Victor II deliveries contained in my Estimates Memorandum.

Sir A. V. Harvey: In view of the importance of these aircraft in the structure of the Royal Air Force, what steps is my right hon. Friend taking to speed up their delivery?

Mr. Ward: That is very largely a matter for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Aviation, with whom I am in close touch.

Mr. de Freitas: Will the right hon. Gentleman, when he speaks tomorrow in the Air Estimates debate, try to say something on this point, which is very important?

Mr. Ward: I shall certainly deal with the V-bombers.

Ballistic Missile Early Warning Station

Mr. Warbey: asked the Secretary of State for Air what length of warning will be given by the Fylingdales Moor early warning station of intermediate range ballistic missiles launched at distances of respectively 750, 1,000 and 1,500 miles from Nottingham.

Mr. Ward: Over a range of 1,500 miles the warning time would be about 11 minutes. Over shorter distances it could theoretically be anything from about 4 to about 15 minutes, according to the speed and trajectory of the missile.

Mr. Warbey: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the heart of industrial England is only 900 miles from Soviet territory in former East Prussia? Will he now admit that the amount of warning of a missile attack that we would be likely to get would be entirely inadequate for this country to be able to do anything effective in defence of its people?

Mr. Ward: I have already made it clear more than once that the primary task of this station is not to warn the public but to make our deterrent more effective.

Automatic Gun Parts (Sale)

Mr. de Freitas: asked the Secretary of State for Air what is now the estimated value of the automatic gun parts sold at the Royal Air Force Station, Hartlebury, to Mr. Abraham Solomons; and how much money was received for them.

Mr. Ward: The only value of which the Air Ministry is aware for these parts is their scrap value, estimated now at £50. Their corresponding value in 1957 was £26 and they were sold for this sum.

Mr. de Freitas: Can the Secretary of State assure the House that there is absolutely no truth in newspaper reports that these parts are worth many thousands of pounds, and that officers of his Department have visited this man to try and get him to sell them back

Mr. Ward: I was, naturally, quoting the scrap value of these parts; they were sold, as the hon. Member knows, as

scrap. I am not concerned with the real value but with the scrap value, which is what we sold them for. When we heard that the police were objecting to these goods being sold as firearms we recognised that it would have been better if we had mutilated them before selling them as scrap, which is what we do nowadays. Therefore, it seemed right to offer to take them back. It is quite wrong to suggest that we have any use for them.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROADS

Major Road Improvements

Mr. F. Noel-Baker: asked the Minister of Transport when he will improve the procedure of his Department for advising county councils as to forthcoming grants for major road improvements on classified roads which, at present, makes it impossible for these councils to work to definite plans, and compels them to base their estimates of expenditure on guesswork; and if he will give special reconsideration to the difficulties of the Wiltshire County Council in this respect.

The Minister of Transport (Mr. Ernest Marples): Grants are authorised within the total amounts voted annually by Parliament. But I fully realise the importance of advance planning and my Department gives highway authorities the best indication possible of the likely scale of grant for some years ahead. In 1958 all highway authorities were given such an indication up to 1961. I am now considering those lists of schemes covering the next five years submitted by highway authorities at my request.

Mr. F. Noel-Baker: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for the personal interest which he has taken in this matter, and for the letter which he wrote to me yesterday on this subject, may I ask whether he is aware that in Wiltshire, in particular, very many county councillors—most of whom are his supporters rather than ours—are very unhappy indeed about this matter? The chairman of the committee concerned says that this has been a constant headache for a long time and that it is high time that the Minister got down to the question and revised his methods. Will he look at this sympathetically with a view to satisfying these people?

Mr. Marples: In view of their excellent political sagacity, I will do my best to satisfy them. But the basis of a highway programme must be what a local authority itself would like to do within its area. I will look at any case, if the hon. Member will send the details to me.

Communications (South Wales and Midlands)

Mr. Gower: asked the Minister of Transport if he will expedite the improvements in road communications between South Wales and the Midlands; and if he will make a statement.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. John Hay): Work will start this spring on the first twenty-eight miles of the Bristol to Birmingham motorway, which will join the Ross Spur motorway now under construction and due for completion before the end of the year. Between Ross and Newport the existing trunk road will be provided throughout with dual carriageways and we hope to start the first schemes in this comprehensive improvement during the next financial year. Preparatory work on the Newport by-pass is now actively in hand. Construction started in January last on the first stage of the Heads of the Valleys road and this will be followed by other schemes to complete the improvement of the trunk route between Raglan and Neath.

Mr. Gower: In view of the efforts now being made in South Wales ports to find other trades to take the place of the coal exports, will my hon. Friend appreciate the very great urgency of this question of improving road communications with the Midlands?

Mr. Hay: Yes, we are well aware of this. This set of projects constitutes one of the five major projects which my right hon. Friend's predecessor announced as long ago as 1956.

M.1 Road (Fencing)

Mr. Mapp: asked the Minister of Transport the capital cost and maintenance cost per mile of highway fencing on the M.1 road; and whether, in formulating his proposals for financial

assistance to the railways, which now bear the total cost of track fencing, he will consider making a comparable grant.

Mr. Marples: The capital cost of fencing the M.1 road was £3,100 for each mile of highway, and the average annual maintenance cost will be about £40 a mile, but I do not think that this is very relevant to the present financial problem of the railways.

Mr. Mapp: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that reply. Will he bear in mind that the British Transport Commission operates nearly 19,000 track miles? Can he assure us that this example, and other comparable forms of track costs and track signalling costs, of road and rail will be borne in mind in preparing the statement to the House on the B.T.C.'s finances?

Mr. Marples: Every fact will be borne in mind before that statement is made.

Road Junction, Derby (Fatal Accident)

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: asked the Minister of Transport whether he will call for a report about the fatal accident which occurred in Derby on 8th January, 1960, at the junction of Derby Road and Kenilworth Avenue; and whether he will consider the recommendations put forward by the jury at the inquest on the pedestrian who was killed.

Mr. Hay: Yes, Sir. I will write to the right hon. Member when our inquiries are complete.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Did not the jury say that this was a very dangerous place? Will the hon. Gentleman consider instructing the divisional road engineer to meet local representatives with a view to providing the pedestrian crossing for which the local authority has asked?

Mr. Hay: The position is, as the right hon. Gentleman has said, that the jury made such an observation. Our divisional road engineer visited the site recently and discussions are now proceeding locally. That is involved in the report for which I have called. As soon as we get that report, I will write to the right hon. Gentleman about it.

Oral Answers to Questions — RAILWAYS

Rogart Station (Passenger Traffic)

Sir D. Robertson: asked the Minister of Transport if he is aware that Rogart railway station is to be kept open for goods traffic but closed to passenger traffic to the inconvenience of the local people, over 2,000 of whom travelled to and from Rogart last year, and that the four daily passenger trains need to stop for only one minute to put down and pick up passengers; and if he will refer the proposed closure of part of Rogart railway station to the appropriate Transport Users' Consultative Committee.

Mr. Marples: This matter has already been fully considered by the Transport Users' Consultative Committee for Scotland.

Sir D. Robertson: Since when did it become more important for goods to have precedence over passengers? Surely passengers should have the prior right over goods? If services are kept open for goods, then why not for passengers also?

Mr. Marples: This question has been fully considered, but I looked into it myself, knowing my hon. Friend's tenacity in supplementary questions. People make 2,000 journeys in a year—arrivals and departures—which works out at five or six passenger journeys per day on a total of seven trains per day. That means fewer than one passenger per train—to be exact, ·85 of a passenger per train—which makes it difficult to run it at a profit.

British Transport Commission (Organisation)

Mr. Cooper: asked the Minister of Transport if he will make a statement on the future financial and administrative organisation of the British Transport Commission.

Mr. Marples: I am not in a position to make a statement.

Mr. Cooper: In view of the very grave apprehensions throughout the country about the affairs of the British Transport Commission, can my right hon. Friend give any indication of when he will be able to make such a statement?

Mr. Marples: It will be fairly quickly, but I prefer that the statement should be accurate and comprehensive rather than that it should be made too soon.

Mr. Benn: Does not the fact that the Guillebaud Report will be out today or tomorrow necessitate an early statement, and is not a debate on the whole subject now becoming very urgent?

Mr. Marples: I have already given an assurance that I will make a statement at the earliest possible moment. I realise that the Guillebaud Report will be out this week. A debate is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House.

Mr. Nabarro: May I appeal to my right hon. Friend—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—in the presence of the Leader of the House—[HON. MEMBERS: "Question."]—is he aware—

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is very difficult to conduct Questions. I know what fun shouting is, but sometimes we have to refrain from indulging ourselves.

Mr. Nabarro: I am very grateful for your protection, Sir. Is it not a fact that the finances of the British Transport Commission in their present condition have very grave implications in the context of the Budget? Cannot hon. Members on this side of the House, as well as hon. Members opposite, be assured that there will be a debate well before the Budget so that the advance in railwaymen's wages is not used as an excuse for failing to reduce taxation in the Budget?

Mr. Marples: I am grateful for those preliminary views of my hon. Friend, but the question of a debate is for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House.

Mr. Nabarro: Of course, but I have said it in his presence.

Mr. Marples: No doubt he will attach to it the same weight which he always gives to observations from my hon. Friend.

Mr. Benn: Will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that he will not allow his hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) to bully him into any further inactivity?

Mr. Marples: I do not think that I shall allow my hon. Friend to bully me, although at times his appearance is somewhat formidable.

Victoria Line Tube

Mr. Biggs-Davison: asked the Minister of Transport whether he will make a statement about the consideration given by his Department to the Report of the London Travel Committee on the proposed Victoria line.

Mr. Marples: I have at present nothing to add to the reply I gave to the hon. Member on 3rd February.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: As it is more than a month since my right hon. Friend said that he hoped to make a statement soon, may we be told how soon is soon?

Mr. Marples: My hon. Friend must remember that the whole of the railway system, both underground and over-ground, is now being examined and it is better to treat it altogether.

Mr. Lipton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the patience of London's travelling public is beginning to wear a little thin? Will he bear in mind that he has promised to make so many early statements that we would like an assurance that he will place this at the head of the long queue of early statements which he has promised to make?

Mr. Marples: I do not think that I have promised to make many early statements, but this will be made early. The travelling public would be very inconvenienced if we adopted the hon. Gentleman's suggestion of not allowing motor cars in the centre of London.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT

Traffic Volumes

Mr. Goodhew: asked the Minister of Transport whether he is now able to announce the revision of the basis for estimating future traffic volumes laid down in Circular 727 of 30th April, 1956.

Mr. Marples: The revised basis for estimating future traffic volumes will be incorporated in a general circular to highway authorities about the design of roads in rural areas. I hope shortly to

consult the associations of local authorities about this circular and I will issue it as soon as possible afterwards.

Public Service and Goods Vehicles (Speed Limit)

Mr. Goodhew: asked the Minister of Transport if he will now ask representative organisations for their recommendations on increasing from 30 miles-an-hour to 40 miles-an-hour, outside built-up areas, the speed limits of public service and goods vehicles.

Mr. Hay: A similar proposal was circulated in December, 1958, and I have the views which the representative organisations gave last year. We will bear my hon. Friend's suggestion in mind if we decide to seek the views of these organisations again.

Mr. Goodhew: Does not my hon. Friend realise that many of these vehicles already travel at 40 miles-an-hour. That being so, would it not be better if it were made legal?

Mr. Hay: There was a good deal of lack of unanimity among the representative organisations on these matters when we considered them last year. I would not like to accept without qualification or challenge what my hon. Friend has said.

Mr. Mellish: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that men's livelihoods are affected by any decision about raising the speed limit from 30 miles-an-hour to 40 miles-an-hour. Will he assure the House that before such a decision is taken, the trade unions concerned will be consulted?

Mr. Hay: I think that they were consulted—

Mr. Mellish: Are they to be consulted now?

Mr. Hay: They were consulted last year and would certainly be consulted again.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF DEFENCE

Ballistic Missile Early Warning Station

Mr. Driberg: asked the Minister of Defence if, in view of the imminence of international discussions on the problems of disarmament and world peace,


and the desirability of reducing tension in order to create a favourable atmosphere for these discussions, he will instruct the Service Departments and the other authorities concerned to postpone the construction of a ballistic missile early warning station in the United Kingdom, at least until after these discussions have taken place.

The Minister of Defence (Mr. Harold Watkinson): No, Sir.

Mr. Driberg: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Foreign Secretary was consulted about the timing of the announcement about Fylingdales? Was it not realised, quite apart from the merits or demerits of the project, that an announcement at this time would be likely to aggravate intransigence, obstinacy and boastfulness on both sides of the negotiation table?

Mr. Watkinson: I think that my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary was aware of this decision. Its effect was discussed in the debate on defence over the last two days. Undoubtedly it adds to the effectiveness of our deterrent. It does not measure badly against some of the statements which the Russians have recently made about their great increase in power of rockets and missiles and I do not think, therefore, that it will have the bad effects which the hon. Gentleman suggests.

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANISATION (SPAIN)

Mr. Swingler: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what decisions have been taken by the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation Council about the lease of bases in Spain; and to what extent these decisions provided for occupation of such bases by German troops.

The Minister of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. John Profumo): None, Sir.

Mr. Swingler: In view of the statements which have been made by the Foreign Secretary since this Question was put down, is the Foreign Office now aware of the widespread opposition to the location in Spain of any military bases for the West? Will the right hon.

Gentleman now reconsider giving an assurance that the British delegate at N.A.T.O. will oppose any proposal that N.A.T.O. bases should be located in Spain?

Mr. Profumo: I have nothing to add to the very clear statement which my right hon. and learned Friend made the other day, except, perhaps, to say that I understand that that subject is being discussed by the N.A.T.O. Council today and that it is possible that the Council will be issuing a communiqué after its meeting.

Mr. Swingler: Is the Minister of State aware that the Foreign Secretary's statement on the subject was not clear, and that he refused to answer the question? Will he give an assurance that we will oppose the location in Spain of military bases for N.A.T.O.? May we have an answer to that supplementary question?

Mr. Profumo: If the hon. Gentleman will look at the answers which my right hon. and learned Friend gave on that occasion, he will find that his Question was adequately covered.

Oral Answers to Questions — FALKLAND ISLANDS DEPENDENCIES (INSTALLATIONS)

Mr. Swingler: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what bases in the Falkland Islands Dependencies are still in the occupation of Argentina and Chile; and what negotations have taken place with these or other Governments concerning their claims.

Mr. Profumo: Argentina at present occupies nine and Chile four bases in the Falkland Islands Dependencies. Both Governments have also erected navigational beacons and refuge huts in the area. Her Majesty's Government made formal protests when each installation was set up.
The Antarctic Treaty signed in Washington on 1st December, 1959, on behalf of twelve nations, including the United Kingdom, Argentina and Chile, provides for the maintenance of the legal status quo as regards territory. The Treaty, when ratified, will ensure that United Kingdom sovereignty in the Antarctic is fully safeguarded.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT

Gateshead

Mr. Randall: asked the Minister of Labour the numbers of persons registered as unemployed, both male and female, together with the percentage rates of unemployment, both male and female, in the Gateshead and district area for the latest convenient date, together with figures for each twelve months preceding; and if he will give separate figures for Gateshead.

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Edward Heath): As the reply consists of a table of figures I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Randall: May I ask the Minister of Labour if the figures show that there has been heavy and persistent unemployment? If they do, what is he doing in the matter? Also, will he draw to the attention of his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade the fact that there is a very good reason why this

NUMBER OF PERSONS REGISTERED AS UNEMPLOYED AT EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGES AND YOUTH EMPLOYMENT OFFICES IN THE GATESHEAD ARE AND THE PERCENTAGE RATES WHICH THESE REPRESENT OF THE ESTIMATED TOTAL NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES IN THE AREA


—
9th February, 1959
15th February, 1960


Males
Females
Total
Males
Females
Total


Blaydon
…
…
…
501
66
567
455
84
539


Felling
…
…
…
…
375
71
446
372
61
433


Gateshead
…
…
…
1,518
460
1,978
1,676
336
2,012


Prudhoe
…
…
…
81
19
100
90
28
118


Total for Gateshead area
…
2,475
616
3,091
2,593
509
3,102


Percentage Rates
…
…
4·6
2·7
4·0
4·8
2·2
4·1

EARTHQUAKE, AGADIR (AID)

Mr. Edelman (by Private Notice): asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what aid the Government is giving to victims of the Moroccan earthquake disaster.

The Minister of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. John Profumo): Her Majesty's Government have heard with profound regret of the damage to life and property which has been suffered by the people of Agadir in this terrible earthquake disaster. To assist in relief we are offering the sum of £10,000.

area should be included in those areas listed under the Local Employment Bill?

Mr. Heath: My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has the fundamental figures which appear in this list which I am publishing for the information of the hon. Gentleman. As to the explanation of his action, my right hon. Friend answered a Question from the hon. Gentleman on 18th February.

Mr. Randall: That does not answer the first part of my supplementary question. Do the figures show that there has been substantial and heavy unemployment among men during the period covered by the Question?

Mr. Heath: The figures are those for which the hon. Gentleman asked, which are those for 9th February, 1959, and 15th February, 1960. There is a difference of 0·1 per cent. between those figures, but they are not the average over the whole year, because the hon. Gentleman did not ask for them.

Following is the table:

Parliament will be asked in due course to vote the money by means of a Supplementary Estimate to the Foreign Office Grants and Services Vote. In the meantime, an advance is being obtained from the Civil Contingencies Fund. It is for discussion with the Moroccan authorities whether this contribution shall be in cash or kind.

Units of the Royal Air Force are standing by in Gibraltar with relief supplies and will leave as soon as the Moroccan authorities are ready to receive them. A minesweeper, Her Majesty's ship "Darleston", will arrive in Agadir


within the next 24 hours and will be followed as soon as possible by Her Majesty's ship "Tyne". This ship, of 11,000 tons, has extensive facilities for the treatment of the injured.

Last night, my right hon. and learned Friend sent the following message to the Moroccan Government:
I am most distressed to hear of the disaster which has befallen the town of Agadir. I would like Your Excellency to know that I and my colleagues in Her Majesty's Government, and the people of the United Kingdom, feel the deepest sympathy for the Government and people of Morocco and share in your sorrow for the victims of this disaster.

I am sure that the whole House will wish to be associated with this message.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Edelman: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Government's prompt and active help will be welcomed by all those who have been shocked by this catastrophe and are anxious that sympathy should find practical assent?

Mr. Profumo: indicated assent.

OFFICIAL REPORT (ALTERATION)

Mr. George Wigg: May I raise a point of order of which I have given you, Mr. Speaker, and the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Defence notice?
On reading HANSARD this morning, I became aware of a discrepancy in the report of the speech, as I recollected it, of the Minister of Defence last night. I therefore approached the Editor of HANSARD, who was kind enough to write to me in the following terms:
The original typescript of the marked passage attached read as follows:
'It is clearly known and accepted in N.A.T.O. that our new Regular Forces have an efficiency, quality and fighting power which is worth two or three conscript soldiers even in the German Forces. [An HON. MEMBER: "Who is denigrating now?"]'.
The Editor said that this was altered by the Minister's Department to read:
It is clearly known and accepted in N.A.T.O. that our new Regular Forces have an efficiency, quality and fighting power not possessed by conscript soldiers even in the German Forces. [An HON. MEMBER: 'Who is denigrating now?']"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st March, 1960; Vol. 618, c. 1152.]

The letter to me concludes by saying that the responsibility for allowing an alteration rests with the OFFICIAL REPORT; the Minister's Department may suggest alterations, but it is the Editor's responsibility either to allow them or not, and this one should not have been allowed.

Mr. Speaker: I am obliged to the hon. Member for giving me notice of this matter so that I could inform myself of the position. I am afraid that there is nothing I can do except apologise to the House for an error in the OFFICIAL REPORT. Such a change should not, of course, have been allowed.
I hope that I shall have the House with me if I say that, by and large, the OFFICIAL REPORT renders magnificent service to us all, and it is rare indeed that one finds that a mistake has been made.
I will give instructions that in the Bound Volume the words will be put back to what the Minister said.
The Minister of Defence (Mr. Harold Watkinson): I may have some responsibility in this, and, if so, I would certainly wish to tender my apologies to the House, Mr. Speaker.
What, I think, happened was that after my speech last night it was pointed out to me that something I said—I was not speaking from notes and in the heat of debate one says things—might be misunderstood outside the House. I fully accept responsibility for giving instructions that, in the normal editing of HANSARD, which, I think, the whole House understands, if this could be guarded against it should be.
The hon. Gentleman the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) was kind enough to let me know this morning what he proposed to do. I consulted HANSARD, and I agree with him that it would have been better to have left matters as they were. I told him, and I sent a message to the Editor—I do not know whether this was right or not—that I was only too anxious that the matter should be restored in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
I do not know quite where the responsibility lies, but perhaps you would allow me to say, Sir, that I must accept some responsibility. I do not wish the blame to lie entirely on the OFFICIAL REPORT. I apologise for what happened.

Orders of the Day — CIVIL AVIATION (LICENSING) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

3.38 p.m.

The Minister of Aviation (Mr. Duncan Sandys): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The Bill carries out a pledge that we gave at the General Election. It has two main purposes. First, to ensure that all who provide public transport by air shall be required to maintain proper standards of safety. Secondly, to establish an independent authority to whom all airline operators can apply on an equal footing for licences to run regular air services.
I will, if I may, deal first with the question of safety. B.O.A.C. and B.E.A., and most of the independent airlines, have established—and I am sure that the House will agree with this—a high reputation for reliability. There is, however, a growing feeling that the existing arrangements for individual safety in air transport need to be strengthened and extended. At present, no new scheduled service is approved by the Minister unless the Director of Aviation Safety at the Ministry of Aviation certifies that the operator's equipment and organisation are safe and satisfactory for the service proposed.
On the other hand, and this is our difficulty, we have no power to insist that the same standards of safety are observed by operators of charter services, who do not have to go through the procedure of obtaining the Minister's approval. This is a matter of some importance since many thousands of passengers now travel by these services each year.
The tragic crash of a charter plane at Southall, in 1958, in which seven people lost their lives, drew attention to the unsatisfactory state of the law. This led to a demand that all operators, without exception, should be made to comply with proper safety requirements. It is I think, in everybody's interest that the law should be tightened up. It is necessary for the protection of the passengers in the air and the public on the ground. It is necessary for the protection of conscientious operators against

being undercut by less scrupulous rivals. It is also necessary to protect the good name of British aviation, which can so easily be damaged by the negligence of an irresponsible minority.
The Bill consequently provides that, in future, all commercial operators, without exception, will have to obtain what is to be called an "air operator's certificate." The precise form of the certificate will be prescribed by an Order in Council, under Section 8 of the Civil Aviation Act, 1949. This Order will be made after the Bill becomes law. The certificate will be issued by the Director of Aviation Safety, of the Ministry of Aviation—the same authority that now certifies to the Advisory Council on these matters. This certificate will certify that from the standpoint of safety an operator's aircraft are of a suitable type and that his maintenance system, operational staff and organisation are up to the standard required for the service in question.
Firms which are refused an air operator's certificate will have the right of appeal to an independent arbiter, who will be assisted, when necessary, by expert assessors. I considered whether the appeal should be to the Minister and not to an independent arbiter. But since it is a question of fact which has to be considered, and since the Director of Aviation Safety—whose decision is being questioned—is an official of the Minister, it seemed to me fairer that the issue should be settled by an entirely independent person.
All operators will be asked to apply for operators' certificates as soon as the Bill becomes law. To give time for these applications to be dealt with there will be an interval of a few months before the provisions of Clause 1 (2, a) are brought into force.
I come now to the other main purpose of the Bill, namely, to set up an independent authority to license air transport services. It might have been possible to create a licensing authority without any new Bill at all, since Parliament, in its wisdom, provided powers to do this by Order in Council under Section 13 of the Civil Aviation Act, 1949. However, in view of the wide interest which exists in this matter, we thought that the House would prefer us to deal with this by means of a Bill, which can be more


fully debated and, if necessary, amended in Committee.
Before explaining the provisions of the Bill, I should like to say a word about the present practice and the way in which it has developed since the war. The Civil Aviation Act, 1946, later consolidated in the Air Corporations Act, 1949, gave the airways corporations and their associates a statutory monopoly of all scheduled services. The independent companies were thus restricted to the somewhat limited field of charter work. But before very long it was seen that this arrangement was unfair and to some extent unworkable. Accordingly, in 1949, the then Government authorised the independents to operate a small number of scheduled services to supplement those provided by the corporations.
In order to circumvent the statutory monopoly of the corporations, the independent companies concerned had to be appointed as associates of B.O.A.C. or B.E.A.—a most tortuous and cumbersome arrangement. In deciding what independent services should be authorised the then Minister of Civil Aviation, Lord Pakenham, turned for advice to the Air Transport Advisory Council. As a result, this body, which had originally been designed as nothing more than a normal consumers' council, gradually assumed the functions of a licensing authority.
In 1952, after the change of Government, this informal arrangement was further extended. In all the circumstances, I believe that the Air Transport Advisory Council has discharged its difficult duties with fairness and efficiency, and on behalf of the Government I should like to express our warm appreciation of the services rendered by the members of the Council and, in particular, by its Chairman, Lord Terrington.
But with the rapid growth of air transport, it would clearly not be right to rely indefinitely upon these somewhat makeshift arrangements. Moreover, the corporations naturally dislike the legal farce which obliges them to conclude associate agreements with the independent companies, which, in reality, are not associates, but rivals. The independents equally dislike the procedure under which they are precluded from applying for licences in their own right.
The Bill will regularise this position in two ways. First, the monopoly of the corporations will be brought to an end by the repeal of Section 24 of the Air Corporations Act, 1949. Secondly, a Board will be set up to whom all operators, both corporations and independents, will be able to apply for licences on equal terms. I have not yet reached any final conclusions about the composition of the Board. All I can say at present is that it is intended to appoint men of wisdom and experience. Since one of the main tasks of the Board will be to adjudicate between claims of rival operators it would be inappropriate for the Board to contain representatives of the interests concerned.
Applications for licences will, in general, be advertised, so that any other parties which may be affected will have the opportunity to raise objections. The proceedings of the Board should normally be held in public—unlike the proceedings of the Advisory Council.

Mr. John Rankin: Will the Press be there?

Mr. Sandys: If the proceedings are held in public I do not suppose that the Press will fail to take advantage of those facilities. It may, however, be necessary to hold private sittings from time to time, for example if issues affecting international relations are being discussed.
Clause 2 (2) sets out a list of considerations which the Board is required to take into account in deciding whether or not to grant a licence. These are intended to ensure that applicants will be given a fair opportunity to obtain licences for new services, while, at the same time, ensuring proper protection for existing operators.
It is my intention that the Board shall be as independent as it is possible to make it, for that is one of the primary purposes of the Bill. I have, therefore, kept down the Minister's powers to the minimum. The only important power which is reserved to the Minister is that of deciding appeals from decisions of the Board.
I think that it will be found that any other powers which are reserved to the Minister are very secondary in importance in comparison with the power to settle appeals. I considered most carefully the possibility of setting up some


independent appeal machinery. But since, at times, issues of Government policy and of public policy are bound to be involved, I felt that hon. Members would not wish these matters to be settled by anyone except a Minister accountable here to the House of Commons.
In addition, the Minister is given two further powers, but, as I have said, these are very secondary in comparison with the power to settle appeals. The first is the power to require the Board to reject an application for a licence, the grant of which would entail negotiations with a foreign Government for traffic rights. I think that it will be agreed that it would not be right for an outside body such as a licensing board to put the Government under an obligation to open negotiations with foreign Governments if they do not think it wise and opportune to do so.
The other function reserved to the Minister is that of approving, as at present, the rates of international fares. In view of the existing procedure for the negotiation of these fares through the International Air Transport Association, I.A.T.A as it is called, or through direct bilateral agreement with other Governments, it would be not only inappropriate, but also not practicable, for the Government to delegate control of fares to any other authority.
In this connection, it may be convenient if I say something about current negotiations on fares. On 15th December, I informed the House that in view of the breakdown of the conference of the International Air Transport Association, at Honolulu, I had decided to authorise B.O.A.C. to introduce economy fares on our colonial cabotage routes to the West Indies, Africa and the Far East. I explained that I should have to consult other Governments concerned about the precise rates to be charged and the timing of the start of these new fares. At the same time, I gave an assurance that I would see that the interests of the existing colonial coach services, which were being run by independent companies, would be properly safeguarded.
Following my announcement of this decision, I.A.T.A. decided to make a further attempt to reach agreement. A meeting for this purpose is now taking place in Paris. I hope that it will be

found possible to settle the outstanding issues. I cannot say much more today except that I will make a full statement to the House on this whole subject as soon as possible after the Paris meeting is over.
When the new Act comes into force, the air transport operators will require quite a number of new licences in order to legalise the continuance of their existing services. To prevent the Board from being immediately choked by a flood of applications to cover the existing services, power is given to the Minister, under Clause 2 (6), to authorise the issue of the initial licences which will be needed to tide things over. I have discussed this matter with the corporations and with representatives of the independent organisations; and they are agreed that the fairest thing to do will be to allow the existing pattern of air services to continue unchanged for the time being.
I therefore propose to authorise licences on this principle. These will be called transitional licences. I attach importance to the word "transitional". The object is to emphasise the fact that I am not prejudging the future decisions of the Board and that it is open to any operator to apply as soon as he likes for a new licence or for the amendment of a transitional licence issued to some other operator.

Mr. Charles Loughlin: How long will the transitional licences last? Is it envisaged that at some point in time they will cease to exist because of the application or non-application for permanent licences?

Mr. Sandys: I am glad that the hon. Member asked that, because it needs clearing up.
The transitional licence will last as long as it is not altered by the Board. In other words, it could be a permanent licence if nobody applies for any other licence which either encroaches upon it or requires some variation of it. It is a transitional licence in the sense that these licences will be issued by the Board without application from the operators, and without examination and discussion, merely to legalise the continuance of the existing position. It will be open to any operator, whether a corporation or an independent company, immediately after the Act comes into force, to apply for


additional licences or for the variation of the licence given to some other operator on the grounds that the applicant wants a licence which would require an amendment to an existing licence.

Group Captain C. A. B. Wilcock: Is the Minister prepared to say whether he will give any instructions to the Board about the issue of these new transitional licences? Will he give the Board any guidance?

Mr. Sandys: Yes. The Board will not exercise any discretion in this matter. The transitional licences will be issued by the Board at the Minister's request, and in making that request to the Board it will be my intention to reproduce as nearly as possible the existing position. I shall have any necessary consultations with the corporations and the independent companies to make sure that as far as possible everybody agrees that the instructions which I give to the Board about transitional licences fairly reproduce the present position. There are one or two borderline points which will have to be clarified but, broadly speaking, there should be no difficulty about this.
I hope that the House agrees that it is much better for me to reproduce the present position in the first place than to try to do the Board's job for it in advance, in a hurry and without proper discussion. The essence of this Board is that it will enable everybody to go before it and to argue out their case. I think that that is the right way to handle it I am grateful that both the corporations and the independent companies have accepted my suggestion that we should not attempt to make any changes in the first place.
The future pattern of British aviation will emerge progressively from the decisions of the Board and from the results of appeals to the Minister. A kind of case law will gradually be built up. Since I have no intention of trying to settle this in advance, I cannot tell the House just how it will all work out. I can, however, give some indication of the general trends which I hope to see develop as a result of this Bill.
In particular, I can tell the House what the Bill will not do, and is not intended to do. It is not intended to undermine the position of B.O.A.C. or B.E.A.

Those two corporations are our main flag carriers on the air routes of the world. Large sums of public money have been invested in them and they have to face fierce competition from foreign rivals. They therefore desrve, and will get, our full support and encouragement.
Another thing that the Bill will not do is to break up the partnership agreements the corporations have concluded with Commonwealth and foreign airlines. These pooling arrangements have proved valuable in eliminating wasteful duplication and promoting productive co-operation and harmonious international relations in the sphere of aviation. I shall certainly take care to see that nothing is done to upset these arrangements. In fact, I shall do all I can to encourage further international co-operation of this kind.
The independent companies have also a most valuable and constructive part to play. By their initiative they have created new traffic. I am sure that, if they are given scope, they will continue to do so. As I have explained, the Bill withdraws from the corporations their statutory monopoly. This gives to the independents something for which they have long been asking—freedom to apply for licences in their own right on the same footing as the corporations. Whether or not any particular application is successful will, of course, depend upon a number of factors, including the ability of the applicant to convince the Board that his company possesses the resources needed to provide an effective and a reliable service. With this in mind, I have been encouraging the independent airlines to get together and to form stronger units and I am glad to say that good progress is beginning to be made. In particular, I welcome the amalgamation of Airwork Ltd. and Hunting-Clan, which was announced this morning.
The introduction of some element of competition between the corporations and the independents and the continuing need for all operators to justify the retention of their existing services will, I am sure, provide an additional impetus for efficiency. I would, however, emphasise that neither the corporations nor the independents wish to see unrestricted cut-throat competition.
The last thing any of them wants is a complete free-for-all. Nobody is prepared to put up the large sums of money required for the purchase of modern aircraft and the setting up of maintenance bases and sales organisations without some measure of security. They naturally wish to be assured that, having built up custom on a particular route, they will be given some reasonable protection against interlopers who seek to reap where others have sown.
Moreover, it should not be assumed that the corporations and the independents will always be in conflict with one another. At least one independent company has for some time been running certain services on behalf of one of the corporations. There is no reason why genuine pooling agreements should not be made between them on certain routes. In fact, I think that this is quite a likely development. Whether they operate in competition or in partnership, the new system, I believe, will afford an opportunity for all in an expanding market, while at the same time giving reasonable security against unfair competition. I have every confidence that the new Licensing Board will hold the scales fairly between all parties.
Over the next ten years there will certainly be a vast expansion in air transport. It will be more and more the normal method of travel for the mass of people in all countries. Parallel with this, aeroplanes will be used to an ever-increasing extent for the carriage of freight. For long past the British Mercantile Marine has carried a large part of the seaborne traffic of the world. In this age of flight, we must do the same in the air. With our support and encouragement—and I am sure that is assured from all sides of the House—I am confident that our British airlines, corporations and independents together, have it in their power to secure for Britain an increasing share of the expanding air traffic of the world.

4.6 p.m.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: The Minister, as usual, has explained his Bill to the House concisely and lucidly and we are grateful to him for doing so.
Perhaps before I start on any criticism of the Bill, I should say that, however one may disagree with the right hon. Gentleman in his ideas, no one could

complain that he is either a slothful or weak Minister. He has been in office for only four months, and already he has forced the aircraft industry to carry out a policy which it did not want and which it had been pressed by a previous Minister to do for about two years.
Further, the right hon. Gentleman has either forced, or, as a result of his pressure, brought about the amalgamation of two airline companies, as announced today. And now we are considering a Bill which will radically alter the relationship between the airways corporations and the airline companies. All that has been done in four months. Much as we may sometimes deplore the right hon. Gentleman's policies, we cannot help but admire the forceful and effective way in which he brings them into operation.
The right hon. Gentleman said that one of the purposes of the Bill was to fill a gap in the existing safety arrangements. We agree, of course, wholeheartedly with these proposals. I do not think that anybody questions that the existing situation is unsatisfactory and that it was ridiculous and contrary to the public interest that those operators responsible for non-scheduled or charter services should escape the safety provisions which applied to others. For some time we have asked that action should be taken to fill that gap. The Government have taken the opportunity presented by this Bill to do so. Without reservation we support his proposals in principle and believe that the procedure which the Minister described is right. We are glad that this change will now take place and we support it wholeheartedly.
The main purpose of the Bill, however, is to bring about a fundamental alteration in the present pattern of civil aviation. It will change the existing rights and prospects of the two corporations and the independent airlines. There may well be a case for tidying up the present procedure. One can well argue—I would not dispute this—that the arrangements, as they worked out under the 1949 Act, whereby independent companies have to pretend to be associates or agents of the air corporations, proved to be ridiculous. I agree that there was a strong case for making some alteration in the procedure under which airline companies operate. It was


not only a fiction that the companies were associates of the air corporations. It was a lie, as they were, in fact, not associates at all. They were deadly competitors. But they had to pretend to be associates.
We do not quarrel with the proposal to make some alteration in the licensing arrangements or, indeed, with the idea of setting up a Board to consider applications. Our objection to the Bill is twofold. First, Parliament is asked to enact a Bill which is so vague and imprecise that no one knows what its consequences will be. Parliament should not be asked to pass such a Measure. Indeed, when explaining the Bill the Minister himself said that he did not know how it would work out. We say that is wrong, and contrary to the interests both of the corporations and the independent companies. Parliament should not do it. The Bill should be made much more precise about the conditions the Board will have to consider when carrying out its licensing functions.
Our second objection to the Bill is that it is likely to have the effect—it certainly will have such effect, if those who sit on the back benches opposite have their way—of inflicting serious damage on the two corporations, which are a great national asset, and in which nearly £300 million of public money have been invested.
The uncertainty created by the Bill affects the independent companies as much as the corporations. We have said in the past, but I will repeat it today in case anyone should suggest that we have any unreasonable prejudices against the independent airlines, that we appreciate the services that they have rendered. Many of them have shown commendable enterprise and carried out their business with praiseworthy efficiency. They have provided many popular services which lay outside the scope of the corporations. We wish them well, but we must say that they are not justified in complaining, as they frequently do, that they have been unduly restricted in the past.
Today, private airlines represent, in terms of passenger miles, when trooping is included, one-third of the total of British air transport. Their activities are increasing rapidly every year, more rapidly than those of the corporations.

They are entitled to know where they stand under this new legislation and what are the intentions of Parliament regarding their future.
What does the Bill propose? That a Licensing Board should be set up consisting of six to ten people. I do not quarrel much with the numbers, but it seems to me that a board comprising six to ten people is too large to consider the sort of problems with which such a body is likely to be faced. But let that pass. What guidance is the Board to receive about the way it should conduct its business? It will have to bear in mind various considerations which it can reject or accept. These considerations appear in Clause 2 (2) in paragraphs (a) to (g) and they include everything that one could possibly think of. The right hon. Gentleman might have saved space by saying that the Board was to consider every relevant factor.
There is no indication of the weight to be given by the Board to the various considerations set out in this Clause, any of which it is perfectly free to reject. Therefore, the Board is, in fact, absolutely free to come to its conclusion on any factors, on any ideas or prejudices, which its members may have in mind; and no one can know what its principles or policy are likely to be. The outcome of its deliberations is completely uncertain, and if Parliament passes the Bill in its present form the result will be unknown.
The considerations which the Board should have in mind are set out in paragraphs (a) to (f) of Clause 2 and then there is added paragraph (g):
any observations made to the Board by the Minister.
The right hon. Gentleman modestly puts his own observations at the bottom of the list, but that does not mean that they are the least important. In fact, we know that they will be the most important of all, because the Minister also has the right to hear appeals against any decisions of the Board. If the Board rejects the observations which the Minister puts before it regarding an application, it knows that it is likely to have its decision reversed on appeal. Therefore, the most important consideration will be the observations put to the Board by the Minister.
No one knows what those observations are likely to be. The right hon. Gentleman will not publish them. Parliament will not know them, no one will. It may be that the applicants and those opposing them will not know. We therefore have the absurd situation of a Board considering a matter of great public importance, which may be a matter of life or death to the independent companies and the corporations, on a set of considerations which it can reject if it wishes, and one of them a secret observation by the Minister.
This appears to us to be ridiculous and indefensible. When the Bill is considered in Committee we hope that it will be altered in several respects. We hope that one alteration will be that any observations by the Minister must be made public. Secondly, and much more important, we hope that certain firm principles will be laid down which the Board must bear in mind and from which it will be unable to depart. We do not want a set of vague principles which the Board can discard if it wishes.
It is not only some hon. Members who think that the outcome of the Bill is vague and uncertain; the same thing has been said by spokesmen for the independent companies. In an interview reported in Flight the other day the chairman of one of the independent companies, when asked what he thought would be the outcome of the Bill, said that he did not know, that it depended on what interpretation was put upon it. I suggest, again, that that is a ridiculous situation.
It may be that the result of any individual application to the Board may not be known, but the broad principles on which the Board is to operate should be stated clearly and precisely. But nothing of the sort is happening. A series of considerations are set out which the Board can reject if it wishes.
May I here digress from my main argument to put a question to the Parliamentary Secretary about something which puzzles me. In Clause 2 (2, c) it is provided that the Board must consider what fares any applicant for a licence proposes to apply on a route. At the same time we are told in Clause 2 (5, b) that fares outside Great Britain have to be settled by the Minister. There appears to me to be a duplication. Sup-

pose an independent company says that it could run a certain service with fares 10 per cent. below those being charged by B.O.A.C. Is the fare aspect of the application to be considered, discussed and settled by the Board, or is it exclusively the duty of the Minister?
Will the Minister consider the application of that company to run the service at cheap fares in competition with B.O.A.C.? Will that be argued between the company and the Board before the Minister, as well as before the Board? If it is to be both, it is ridiculous. Which should come first? As the Bill stands at present, the situation is completely unclear. I hope that we shall have some explanation of it.
The second reason why we oppose the Bill is that it will bring very grave danger to the two air corporations and put them in a position where they may not be able to function effectively against the competition of the world airlines. The 1949 Act gave them a virtual monopoly of British effort on scheduled routes, subject to working with associates and agents. The main purpose behind the 1949 Act, namely, the establishment of this monopoly, is still valid even if a case for reviewing the machinery for licensing independents can be made out. Everyone must agree that the corporations should be the instruments through which Britain should channel its resources and expertise to establish and maintain its position in world aviation.
Moreover, it is recognised by everybody that if the corporations are to be enabled to carry out that purpose, in face of the strong international competition of foreign airlines, they must be protected from having their position weakened by attempts by other British airlines to divert traffic and resources away from them.
That is the position which we maintain should continue to exist today. But the Bill removes from the corporations those necessary safeguards which protected them before, and it substitutes a set of vague considerations which may be interpreted in any way or discarded. That is very serious. Competition amongst world airlines is so strong that at the moment hardly any of them pay their way. Our own corporations have the greatest difficulty in doing so. To


make them face further native competition as well as foreign competition will plainly weaken their position very substantially.
It is interesting to note that, at the very moment when it appears that the corporations are to be subjected to a greater degree of competition from private airlines than ever before, the reverse is taking place in Europe. Air Union is considering arrangements whereby the national airlines of the various countries concerned are not to compete with each other. Its members are devising means whereby they can co-operate by dropping out from some routes certain national airlines in favour of others. The reverse of what is going to happen in this country is going on abroad, and, I think, wisely.

Mr. F. A. Burden: The right hon. Gentleman is not on very firm ground here. What he has been describing has taken place on internal airlines, but not on external airlines. There has been quite a duplication of France's international airlines.

Mr. Strauss: I believe that France is the only country where there is such a duplication.

Mr. Burden: And America.

Mr. Strauss: That was not the point I was making. My point is that those countries which comprise Air Union are now considering eliminating their own national airlines from competition with each other.

Mr. William Shepherd: The right hon. Gentleman is still arguing on weak ground, because Britain is doing exactly the same. We are entering into pooling arrangements with European countries to save duplication of our own services and our bilateral correspondence overseas. We are not out of this by any manner of means.

Mr. Strauss: I do not think that we are. I did not say that. I was making the simple point that if the Bill does what we think it will do—namely, make our corporations face greater competition from rival British airlines—that will weaken them, particularly as other international operators are eliminating competition among themselves. That was

the sole point I was making, and it is a valid one.
Independents have some advantage which the corporations do not possess. One advantage is that they do not have to pay, and many of them do not pay, the same rates of wages and salaries as are paid by the corporations. That is a decided advantage, although I will not take up the time of the House by arguing whether it is an unfair advantage, and one of the things which should be considered by the Board when an application is before it from the corporations and an independent airline to run a certain service is whether they both pay the same wages and salaries. If not, the independent company has an obvious advantage.
Independents have a further advantage. Because many of them are small concerns and operate limited routes, they have less overheads than the two corporations have to carry. That, again, gives them an advantage, although not an unfair advantage.

Sir John Barlow: Will the right hon. Gentleman make that clearer? Would he give a complete monopoly to B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. in this country?

Mr. Strauss: We know their situation at the moment. They have a monopoly, subject to certain rights. I shall come in a moment to what I propose as a reasonable way out of this dilemma. If the hon. Baronet will be patient for a few minutes, I will tell him what I think should happen.
Hon. Members opposite believe in competition as a philosophy, and particularly competition against a national enterprise. They are always pressing their views to that effect. However, in practice, they accepted long ago that in certain national enterprises competition of any sort, whether from private sources or any other source, is wrong and contrary to the national interest. No one would suggest that competition should be permitted in the supply of electricity or gas, although it might well be possible in certain cases for someone to say to the Government, "I can supply these services rather cheaper to a built-up area, and this will benefit the consumers". Some of the airlines use that argument, but no one in his senses would


accept it as a good argument for allowing such competition to take place.
There is a monopoly in certain forms of transport. It would be perfectly easy to show that an independent bus company, as happened in the past, would be able to charge cheaper fares on some routes if it was allowed to compete with the monopoly of London Transport. No one in his senses would permit such a thing to happen, as, in the long term, it would be contrary to the national interest.
This argument applies in exactly the same way, but with special force, in the realm of civil air transport, because there competition has to be faced not only from a new line which may be permitted to compete with the corporations, but from all the airlines run by Governments or companies in all parts of the world. Therefore, it is particularly important to see that no competition is permitted from this country which will underline or weaken in any way the strength of the air corporations to meet such competition.
The Minister said that it is not his intention to undermine the position of B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. I am certain that he is sincere in saying that. If he is sincere, why not draft the Bill in such a way as to carry out his intention? The Bill permits the standing of B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. to be undermined. The right hon. Gentleman may tell us that as long as he remains a Minister and is able to resist the pressures of his back benchers he will do all he can to prevent that happening.
But we do not know what may happen. Ministers change. It may be that one of the back bench Members who have been pressing for greater liberty and opportunities for independents will one day become Minister of Aviation. Then where will we be? The wording of the Bill does not protect the corporations because the Board, if it is so minded and with the support of the Minister of the day, can well decide that competition shall be permitted on a large number of routes in such a way as to make the position of B.O.A.C. and B.E.A., if not untenable, very much weaker.
There is a very simple way out of this. The right hon. Gentleman's intention

should be incorporated in the Bill. It can be done like this. Instead of saying that the Board should take into consideration certain factors, it should be stated that there is one overriding factor which the Board must apply in every application made. Words should be inserted to the effect that it shall not license an operator to run a service which would divert existing traffic from the corporations or such future traffic as it may properly expect to attract. That would not prevent the independents from developing along their present lines.
Of course, hon. Members opposite object to that because their purpose is, in fact, to divert traffic from the two corporations. That is not surprising. The philosophy which animates the Conservative Party, and which it carries out at every opportunity in practice, is to confine and restrict public enterprise in favour of private enterprise even when the national interest and finances suffer as a result.
The consequences of the Bill which we say are likely to take place are not merely the views of my hon. Friends and myself. They are the views of the responsible Press whose members have read the Bill and of experts who study aviation matters. Let me quote two sentences, one from the Economist and the other from the Financial Times. In an article in the Economist of 20th February dealing with aviation matters in general, there is this particular reference to the new policy of the Minister of Aviation of paying some of the development costs of the air corporations:
The two nationalised corporations deserve the sop of a Government subsidy towards the cost of putting new aircraft into service, if only because they may take a severe buffeting when Mr. Sandys' new licensing bill comes into effect".
That is what the Economist expects.
What does the Financial Times expect to happen? After dealing with the provisions of the Bill, it states:
These are among the main points of the Civil Aviation (Licensing) Bill, the text of which was published yesterday. The Bill heralds the long-awaited 'new deal' for the independent airlines, and it should enable them to obtain a much larger share of the growing air traffic both within and outside the U.K. than has been possible in the past.
If they are to obtain a larger share, that plainly means that the Corporations will


obtain a smaller share. The corporations, in the view of these newspapers, will have a smaller share in the new traffic than otherwise they would have a right to expect.
We want to know, not so much the intention of the Minister, but whether he will embody the intentions about which he spoke in introducing the Bill into precise words in the Bill before it leaves this House. If he puts in words which will properly protect the legitimate interests of B.O.A.C. and B.E.A., we shall be satisfied, but those words do not at present exist. Without them we share the unavoidable conclusion expressed by the Economist, the Financial Times and a large number of expert sources that the corporations will get a buffeting as a result of the passage of the Bill.

Mr. Paul Williams: May I revert to the quotation which the right hon. Gentleman made from the Financial Times? I should like to quote a passage from, I think, the same leading article, which states:
It must be made clear that this ending of the monopoly does not mean that B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. are going to have some of their existing scheduled services taken from them and given to the independents. No such carve-up is in prospect.
It seems that the right hon. Gentleman is a bit off-centre.

Mr. Strauss: I did not say that. I have no doubt that most of the existing services will continue. I do not question that. What the Financial Times was dealing with, and what is worrying us, is that, as this great industry develops and new traffic is thrown up, B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. will be deprived of their proper share of that traffic, which will go to the independents. Consequently, the strength of B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. will suffer materially.
It is also possible under the Bill for the very thing which the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. P. Williams) mentioned to happen. It is possible for some of the existing services which the corporations now run to be taken away and given to the independents. All we are asking is that the Bill should make that impossible. We believe, as I have said, that it is the major intention of

many people, at any rate those who support the Bill, to bring about such diversion. As it is at present worded, the Bill certainly permits it, and we think that it is the intention of those who support the Bill to restrict the expansion and prosperity of the national airlines for the benefit of private airlines, to whose pressures the Government have now surrendered.
As this will clearly make it more difficult for the airways corporations to compete successfully with foreign airlines, many of whom are indirectly subsidised by their governments, we say that the Bill should be rejected by Parliament and replaced by one that will not do such grave damage to the national interest.

4.37 p.m.

Mr. William Shepherd: I am afraid that I became rather disappointed with the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss) as he went along. At the beginning of his speech, it seemed that at last he was able to resist the blandishments of the painted harlot of monopoly. As he progressed with his speech, it became clear that she still holds the same charm for him. By the end of his speech, the right hon. Gentleman was virtually saying that, although hon. Members opposite would like to make a pretence of being liberal, they want to write a Bill which will give no chance to the independent operators. I am very disappointed, and I hope that during the passage of the Bill through this House hon. Members opposite will appreciate the purpose of the Bill and will adopt a more liberal attitude towards independent operators.
First, I want to say a word or two about the alleged attitude of back bench members on this side of the House towards the corporations. On several occasions we were stated by the right hon. Gentleman to be seeking to damage the corporations. This is very untrue. We share the real pride of the whole House in the performances of the two corporations. They have done much to establish the prestige of British aviation, and we wish them well.
I had to perform a very disagreeable duty a few weeks ago in this House when I had to complain about the quality and leadership of the B.O.A.C. board. That was not an act of sabotage. Had I been


anxious to damage B.O.A.C., I would certainly have kept quiet, because obviously the poorer the board the less likely is B.O.A.C. to compete effectively. I made a statement which was difficult for me to make personally but which was vital to the well-being of the corporation. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that all my hon. Friends are anxious to see the two corporations playing their proper part in British aviation.
But we are not anxious to see the corporations playing a monopolistic part. I must try to get the right hon. Gentleman to conceive the possibility that competition can have some beneficial and stimulating effect. If we cannot get to this position, we shall never get anywhere. I believe that if, for example, some of the additional frequencies on routes now operated by B.O.A.C. or B.E.A. were given to independent operators, it might well have a decisive effect upon the efficiency of both corporations. It might set a new standard of service, efficiency and enterprise. I am not saying that it necessarily would; all I am saying is that there is a strong presumption that competition would bring to the public a better service.
This can be done without endangering the financial security of the corporations. After all, they are in a pretty strong position, having got nearly all the major routes and having free access to Government financial resources, while these poor independents have to exist on the crumbs which drop from the groaning table of the corporations. It is improper to suggest that there is any possibility of hardship being imposed on the corporations in this process.
The right hon. Gentleman made a number of detailed criticisms of the criteria, and in particular with respect to the responsibility of the Minister. I agree that it is a little unfortunate that we have paragraph (g) in Clause 2 (2), which enables the Minister to make certain comments, but I do not think we can exclude that paragraph. There might be international considerations which would have to be taken into account. That is the answer to the right hon. Gentleman's point that the Minister ought to be compelled to publish his comments. I can conceive of a situation involving delicate international negotiations where it would be

undesirable for the Minister's comments to be published. Therefore, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not press that point in Committee.
On the question of criteria, the right hon. Gentleman said that we should lay down a precise basis on which licensing applications should be considered. He went even further and suggested that we should decide what weight should be attached to each one. Such a suggestion would be very impracticable. If I may say so with deference to hon. Members opposite, this shows how they fail to appreciate the nature of business. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Yes, that is so. I must insist upon this, and perhaps hon. Members opposite will agree if they listen to what I have to say. It may be that in respect of a given criterion the weight to be placed in 1960 is entirely different from the weight which ought to be placed in 1962. Business is constantly changing its pattern, and we cannot lay down to an independent authority in precise terms exactly all the considerations which should weigh with that operator and attach to each of these considerations a weight for all time. It is quite impossible to tackle the problem in that way. If we are to have an independent Board, we must accept some of the uncertainties that are attached to having such a body, and we must give to it the flexibility that is necessary for it to change its policy in the light of changing national and international situations.
I suggest to my right hon. Friend that there is one detail which should be omitted, and that is the provision which requires that an applicant should establish the need for the service. I do not think an applicant ought to be required to prove that the need for the service is established. What he should prove to the Board is that the need for the service is capable of being generated—not that the need for the service exists. If we are to make the progress in this industry that is essential, we must certainly get new traffic generated, and I hope that this requirement for need to be established will be dispensed with so that there will be no question of the need for the service to be detailed in the criteria.
The position of the corporations is abundantly safeguarded in the other


criteria. If the right hon. Gentleman will read from paragraphs (a) to (g) in Clause 2 (2), he will see how many of those considerations safeguard the position of the corporations. But even if that were not so, I feel that we have now come to the stage in civil aviation where we must concentrate the whole of our effort on those customers who pay for their own tickets. Up to now a great deal of the traffic on the civil airlines of the world has consisted of people who do not pay for their own tickets. The number of such people is necessarily limited, and the future must depend upon those people who do pay for their tickets. In this connection, we must have a bold and adventurous policy. I believe—and I hope hon. Members opposite share this view—that in this bold and adventurous policy the independent operators are particularly well-suited to play a substantial part. They have led almost every development in recent years which has resulted in lower fares.
I do not wish to detract from B.E.A., but this corporation makes a big splash on the subject of lower fares. After all, people who spend as much on advertising as B.E.A. do are entitled to make a splash. But there is this great fanfare about the introduction of low prices on the service to Paris—and what does it amount to. It is the same price which B.E.A. charged six or seven years ago to Paris—£9 10s. That is not really a low fare in terms of what is really practicable.
I was recently looking at some figures which may be of interest to the House. This was a theoretical calculation which involved using the new American Super-Hercules aircraft—it could, of course, be applied to other types of aircraft as well—giving the passengers ordinary bus seating accommodation and working on the basis of a 60 per cent. load factor. It was considered that the route between London and Paris could be operated on a return fare of £2. That is an indication, if only theoretical at present, of what is practicable if we get down to really low fares. I agree that, on the whole, it would not be practicable to operate the London-Paris route in this way, but there are plenty of areas, such as Portugal, Greece, and islands like Malta and Cyprus, which could be

opened up to a vast volume of new traffic if there were really low air fares.
If we are to achieve this, the independents will have to play a big part, and they will have to surmount this terrible obstacle of I.A.T.A. which at the moment is clamping down on low fares. I hope that during the passage of this Bill my right hon. Friend will try to arrange matters so that air clubs are legally possible in this country. If we are to progress towards really low fares—fares one-quarter of what are charged today—the charter service on a club basis is essential as a forerunner. At the moment, firms which want to establish a club for the purpose of getting a high load factor on a charter service cannot do so because of legal difficulties. I hope my right hon. Friend will try to eliminate those difficulties so that we can pave the way to low fares and when I say "low" I do not mean £9 10s. return to Paris but something like three guineas.
I for one welcome this Bill in no spirit of criticism of the corporations. I believe that the stimulus it will give to the corporations will make them even better servants of the community than they are now. I believe that the independent operators, who have engaged in a magnificent struggle in the last ten years against almost impossible odds, have earned what we now seek to give them—that is, a place in the sun in British civil aviation. I believe that both independent airlines and the corporations can work together to improve the share which we enjoy of world civil aviation.

4.50 p.m.

Mr. A. E. Hunter: I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak on the Second Reading of this Bill. I hope the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd) will forgive me if I do not follow him in his line of argument, because I want to deal mainly with the first part of the Bill, which deals with the question of air safety.
A debate took place in the last Parliament, in which I took part, on the Report on the civil aircraft accident at Southall. This was a tragic accident in which the pilot and crew of a Viking aircraft and civilians lost their lives. The Report of Mr. Justice Phillimore indicted the airline operators of that aircraft, Independent Air Travel, and the


Government promised during that debate a Measure to ensure high standards of safety.
In the Queen's Speech last year, there was reference to the Bill which we are now discussing. It states:
A Bill will be laid before you for improving the arrangements for licensing air services and air line operators and to ensure the maintenance of high standards of safety."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th October, 1959; Vol. 612, c. 50.]
For some while I and other hon. Members have pressed the Government to implement that promise.
Civil air transport is now rapidly expanding, not only in this country but throughout the world, and it is of paramount importance that all safety measures are taken for the protection of the travelling public which is growing every year, the crews and those engaged in the airline services, and also the residential population below, which is of vital importance. Accidents can take place anywhere: in the countryside, in the cities, in the towns, in the air and at sea. The residents of my constituency who live around London Airport often feel that, with aircraft of all countries taking off and landing, there are special risks for those living around an international airport. I consider that my constituents should be given a high standard of safety. Thousands of people who live around London Airport run a higher risk than those who live in other towns and cities.
There has been a number of emergency landings at London Airport. In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington), whose constituency adjoins mine and who, like myself, has been pressing the Government for safety measures, the Parliamentary Secretary on 15th February this year said:
The total number of full emergency and local standbys at London Airport during the period 1st June, 1958, to 30th April, 1959, is as follows:


Full emergencies
30



Local standbys which are purely precautionary measures
367"
—


[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th February, 1960; Vol. 617, c. 942.]
There is some justification, therefore, for people living around London Airport feeling that they run a greater risk from air accidents than the rest of the population.
My complaint against this Bill is that it does not go far enough in measures for air safety to safeguard the public. It establishes an Air Transport Licensing Board with power to withdraw the licence of an unsatisfactory operator. I trust also that it will prevent the issue of licences to companies like Independent Air Travel, or of doubtful or mushroom growth. Let an airline operator establish a reputation for efficiency and high standards of safety before a licence is issued.
I want to refer to something which I consider should be included in the Bill, to which I hope the Minister will give his consideration, and that is the compulsory insurance of aircraft owners against third party risks. In reply to a Question by myself on 16th November, the Parliamentary Secretary stated:
There is no requirement for compulsory aircraft third-party insurance. Under the Civil Aviation Act, 1949, aircraft owners are legally liable to pay compensation for material loss or damage caused by aircraft to persons and property on the surface. In view of this legal liability, operators normally insure against the risk."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th November, 1959; Vol. 613, c. 790.]
I have had this matter raised by a number of my constituents on several occasions. I am sure that it must be of some concerned to local authorities which have considerable housing estates around London Airport; the same problem also arises around airports in other parts of the country.
A motor car owner is compelled by law to insure against third-party risks. It seems illogical to me that an aircraft owner should not also be compelled to do so. It is a poor argument for the Government to say that these owners normally do so. I appeal to the Minister to consider this matter and perhaps bring forward an Amendment during the Committee stage to strengthen this Measure in the interests of the public.
We all trust that accidents involving great loss of life or great loss of property will not happen, but should one take place when the airline operator is not insured and is uable to pay for damage, action will be demanded for compulsory insurance, so why not do it now? The Minister said today—and I agree with him—that civil air transport will grow. B.E.A. are flying 3 million passengers yearly from London Airport and B.O.A.C. are also flying many passengers.


The independent airline operators are also flying passengers to all parts of the world.
When we have civil air transport growing and people using the services for business, holidays and travel, and also goods being carried by aircraft, it seems to me that the Minister should take powers to ensure that all airline operators, especially the independent ones, insure against third party risks. After all, B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. are backed by the State, and I imagine that the independent operators would welcome it. All should be compelled to insure against third-party risks. Heaven forbid that it should ever happen, but what a disaster it would be if a serious accident should take place and the company were unable to pay for the damage done. I hope very much that the Minister will give close attention to this point and will bring forward in Committee an Amendment to provide for it.
I do not agree with certain parts of the Bill. My right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss) has already made certain criticisms of it. I am sure that most hon. Members are proud of the air corporations. They are the two main airline operators of this country. They fly for Britain, and we can be proud of their progress and efficiency. They pay great attention to air safety standards. I have visited their training school and I know well the high standard to which they train their pilots and the great attention they give to detail. I hope very much that it will be the wish of all Members of the House to join with the Minister when he wishes the air corporations well.
I believe that air transport will expand rapidly in the future. Britain has a great reputation in the air. A splendid record of achievement. We brought forward the Britannia and the Comet, and we have made great strides across the seas and the continents. Britain has a high reputation for safety. Let us do all we can to ensure that Britain is a leading power in civil air transport and the leading air power in maintaining and ensuring high standards of safety for the travelling public, for the crews and for the populations on the ground.

5.2 p.m.

Mr. F. A. Burden: I listened with great interest to the speech of the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss), but I thought that he tried to paint a picture of this Bill as some short of bogy which will be regretted by all concerned. At one stage, he said that the independents do not like it. At another, he strongly implied that the corporations would not like it. Above all, he made it perfectly clear that he did not like it. The more I listened to his arguments, the more certain I became that I really do like it.
Quite frankly, it seemed to me that most of the right hon. Gentleman's arguments were based on far too narrow a conception of what air transport is. If the Opposition are thinking and speaking on the same basis as the right hon. Gentleman, I am very glad that we have as our Minister today a man who can hustle in the way spoken of by the right hon. Gentleman and, moreover, hustle in what I regard as the right and proper direction.
The right hon. Gentleman criticised the terms under which licensing by the Board will take place, but, in my view, the points he made seemed to me almost entirely Committee points which can be raised later. I do not intend to deal with many details in the Bill, but before I proceed I wish to declare an interest. I am associated with a company the chairman of which was described recently in an article by Mr. Frank Beswick, who used to speak on civil aviation affairs for the Opposition, as "the most independent of independents". I am very glad to be associated with that company, although it was only recently that my association with it began.
My stand on the whole subject of civil aviation, together with that of many of my hon. Friends, has been absolutely consistent over the years. We did, indeed, visualise the enormous growth in air transport which was bound to take place, and our concern was, very largely, that Britain was being left behind in reaching out for the new amount of traffic which was coming. I have always thought that if we, as a great trading nation, were to continue to thrive in the world, we must ensure that our civil aviation played a part as great as or even


greater than that played by our Mercantile Marine in the past. The scope of international overseas transport, particularly in the widely separated British territories, creates and should continue to create for us an enormous incentive to go after the available world air traffic and to intensify and expand our current air network.
In my view, that desirable pattern should have been clear a long time ago. However, Britain, wrongly I believe, preferred to build up this great new industry through a monopoly, through the present air corporations. I join with my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friends in saying that the corporations have played a very great and honourable part in extending the influence of British aviation throughout the world, but I believe, also, that, had the enormous scope of our opportunity been recognised back in 1924, when the change-over in Imperial Airways took place, it should then have been realised that, in the long-term interests of our economy and of British civil aviation, a great multiplicity was desirable and should have been established.
Unfortunately, those commercial facts were not understood by Governments and by our planners. Despite the trend in the United States and France to license several external licensed operators, in order not to bring in undesirable competition but to boost their carriage of passengers and freight, this country has gone forward on the basis of the monopolies.
Now, of course, my right hon. Friend has very speedily come in to implement the pattern which many of my hon. Friends saw was necessary. In a very short time, he has been able to stand back and look at the picture and introduce this new trend for the future. Hon. Members opposite have often predicted doom for what this party intended to do. I believe that in three or four years, when what is now proposed has been implemented, they will have cause to eat any words of criticism they may make today and will have to admit that the corporations have neither been emasculated nor weakened, but that they and British aviation generally have been given vigour and stature as a result of this Bill.
About 86 per cent. of the air traffic of the world is shared now between eight leading countries. The United Kingdom has had a falling share in the number of passengers carried. I believe that we must look ahead over the remaining forty years of the twentieth century. With the development of jets and the new supersonic aircraft, the possibilities of expansion in air traffic, both passenger and freight, are enormous.
Today, under I.A.T.A., there are, I believe, 74 or 75 airlines belonging to 55 countries. Thirteen belong to the United States. The average is only 1·3 airlines per country. I ask hon. Members to consider those figures and compare them with the multiplicity of shipping interests which grew up over the years. If we look at the situation in perspective, it is clear that the number of the airlines today is a mere token of what they will be tomorrow. We must, therefore, consider as the first step the opportunities that will exist for this country in the next forty years.
Britain has large sums of capital assets and trade potential tied up in its shipping. It will be necessary for us to compensate for the loss of our sea trade. As aircraft become bigger and faster, it is inevitable that more people will travel by air. I believe, also, that fares will become cheaper. The pressures from international airlines, even if they are resisted by this country, will become so great that the trend is inevitable. Our own tempo, too, must be increased if we are to retain and ever increase our existing carrying capacity. The foundations for this increase will be laid by enabling the introduction of new enterprises and the transfer of capital from sea to air without delay.
The flexibility of policy changes will emerge much more freely as a result of the Bill than would have been possible under the old static arrangement. Hitherto it has always been the case that when any policy change has been suggested, practically every hon. Member opposite regarded it as leading to the denationalisation of the corporations. It has even been argued that since the competition from foreign airlines is so intense, it would be wrong for us to license further airlines to run parallel with B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. from this country.
There is no question of denationalising the corporations, or of emasculating them in any way, or reducing their activities. The independents certainly have no desire for this. Right hon. and hon. Members opposite are doing the independents a great injustice if they suggest that they wish to see the corporations eroded and they themselves set up in their place to operate on the same scale and in the same way as the corporations overnight. That is quite impossible. The independents do not want it overnight or at any period in the future.

Mr. Loughlin: I know that the hon. Member would not attempt to be unfair. We are not suggesting that the independent airlines desire the denationalisation of the corporations. Would the hon. Member not agree, however, that there is an analogous situation to that which arose from the denationalisation of road transport, when the unprofitable railway services remained nationalised? That is precisely the situation which we see in the Bill.

Mr. Burden: This is another bogy in which the future will prove the hon. Member to be quite wrong. There is no question of skimming off the cream. Since the hon. Member and his party are so concerned for the big corporations, I remind them that, very largely as a result of the legislation which they introduced, they forced the independents to live off crumbs for far too long, to the detriment of British civil aviation. It is about time that the independents also had an opportunity to get some of the decent business that accrues to civil aviation. I wish to make it perfectly clear that the independents, hon. Members on this side of the House and everybody interested in air transport generally wish to see the strength, dignity and the opportunities for B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. maintained.

Mr. George Chetwynd: The hon. Member has told us quite clearly what the independents do not want to happen. Will he now tell us what they do want to happen? For example, does he envisage that the independents will be running in parallel with the corporations on highly profitable routes?

Mr. Burden: If the hon. Member is patient a little longer, I will try to state my views.
I must, however, return again to what I regard as Britain's function in the air. We must all co-operate in trying to make our airways as important a carrier as our Mercantile Marine has been in the past. We had a bigger share of the world's sea trade than any other nation. In 1955, on the North Atlantic, Cunard carried 27 per cent. of all passengers and the United States Lines carried 10 per cent. In 1954, the last year for which figures are available, B.O.A.C. carried only 9 per cent. of the air passengers across the Atlantic whilst Pan American and T.W.A. carried 52 per cent.
That is the kind of situation that worries me. That is the picture that we must get into perspective as a great trading nation. More and more people are turning to air travel and unless vastly more of them are carried by British airlines, there will be a considerable adverse effect upon our balance of payments. One must always remember the enormous amount of money that we have earned in the past and the difference which has been made in our standard of living by the foreign exchange earned by our shipping interests.
At the present, as an air-carrying country, we are about on a par with Holland and France. We carry about one-third of the international air traffic carried by the United States. One moment's thought by those who fear that the Bill will cut into the corporations will make them realise that the future will demand no less effort on the part of the corporations. Not only does the future call for the infusion of new blood through the independents, but it means that the corporations will be asked to exert an even bigger effort than they have done in the past.
Hon. Members opposite are concerned, for example, about the effect of the duplication of air traffic over the Atlantic if Britain were to introduce a new operator. Under the 1947 Bermuda Treaty between America and Britain, it was agreed that if Britain asked for it we should have parity of frequency. At the moment, the frequency of Pan American and T.W.A. is far greater than the British frequency. We should


endeavour to take up the provision that was made in 1947 and ensure that under the treaty we fly a number of flights equal to those operated by America through Pan American and T.W.A., and now Seaborne and Western.
There are still tremendous opportunities in Europe. The bulk of the traffic carried in the high density cross-Channel area is that of British nationals. I believe that there are new openings there and that we should take every opportunity to grasp them. In the competition for new routes and frequencies we must not allow Britain's opportunity to be lost. I hope that as a result of the general overall strengthening of British aviation, as a result of this Bill, the British case for higher frequencies and new routes on the international lines will be pressed much more strongly and more often than in the past.
I believe that another feature arises in this matter; that we should look to shipping as an example of how to operate and increase the efficiency of a great many of our services in the air. The shipping companies, if we look at the overall picture, have always concentrated their activities on a limited number of routes. They have specialised, they have carried out intensive market research and they have set their efforts in certain areas. I believe that all that is highly desirable and should be much more the pattern of the future for civil aviation than it has been in the past. It may be that B.O.A.C. may have to grow much bigger, but it is certain that the overall total effort of British civil aviation must get very much bigger than it is today.
We as a party, and I think the country generally, have accepted the need for decentralising, rationalising and pruning, in some directions, some of the nationalised industries, and I believe that had the party opposite been the Government today it would have found it necessary so to do. None of these nationalised industries is subjected to intensive foreign competition, but the air corporations are.
The right hon. Member for Vauxhall said that the independents may pay lower wages and asked what the Minister intends to do about that. Neither the Minister nor anybody else can do anything about foreign companies, with

which B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. are in competition, if they pay lower wages and so reduce their costs. That is a matter that must be taken into consideration. Therefore, I suggest that if it is right to look at the position of the internal nationalised industries to try to increase their efficiency, to improve their costing, and to make them produce better goods at a cheaper price, then it is absolutely vital and essential that we should be prepared to look at the position of the nationalised air corporations in the same way.
I do not believe that the corporations will suffer any ill whatsoever from this infusion of new opportunity for the independents. I believe, in fact, that it will be a stimulant and a challenge to them and that as a result of it the overall picture of air for this country will be vastly better tomorrow than it is today.
What has arisen in other countries? France has had a nationalised air corporation in Air France, but she has now licensed private enterprise airlines, in addition to Air France, to operate on the international routes. The position of Air France has not been weakened thereby; indeed, it has been strengthened, because it is on the routes in which Air France is in competition or running parallel with the other French airlines that it is making a profit. It has not made for increased weakness for France. Why should it for us?
What about Pan America? Consistently, the American subsidy for mail has been reduced, but no one is suggesting that there has been an economic deterioration in Pan American airways as a result. The results of the French and American multiple enterprise influence should abate the fears of right hon. and hon. Members opposite that the Bill will do damage to the great corporations.
There are, as I say, enormous possibilities, and I think that the following figures will sum up just what those opportunities are. In 1949, B.O.A.C. everywhere carried 155,557 passengers. In 1958–59, it carried 495,000 passengers. The overall picture of passengers carried on the international airways in 1958–59 was 69 million. B.E.A. carried quite a lot more. It carried 751,000 in 1949 and 2,828,750 in 1958–59. That is still only just over 3 million out of the 69 million


carried by the international airways of the world.
Hon. Members opposite say that this infusion of new blood is going to weaken the position of B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. Every day, every week and every year more and more people are travelling by air. In 1954, B.O.A.C. carried 9 per cent. of the passengers who crossed the Atlantic. Pan America and T.W.A. carried 52 per cent.
Let us look at the whole situation in broad outline. Let us look to tomorrow. Let us see the opportunities that will exist tomorrow and let us endeavour to make this country as great in the air as she has been on the sea. I believe that my right hon. Friend has taken the first step to chart the way for British airways in the future, which will help to bring this country greater economic security and abundance than it has at present.

5.19 p.m.

Group Captain C. A. B. Wilcock: I will not follow the remarks of the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden), although I must say that his statistics are most interesting. He has certainly made out his case for a great extension in air activity part, of course, which he wishes to go to the independents.
In my fifteen years in the House I have spoken many times, but never have I been on such thin ice as I am this afternoon. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss), who commented on sub-paragraph (g) of Clause 2 (2). It would appear from the Bill that we shall be subject to the caprice of a Minister. I say straight away that if that Minister were the present Minister I would not object.
All of us in the aviation industry—operators, manufacturers and everyone else—know that although the decisions may not be in our favour they will be fair. I know, and I must say it, that the Minister made it perfectly clear outside the House that he would not see any deterioration in the position of the public corporations.
This Bill does not deal just with independents, B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. It is a Bill that deals also with safety, and we would welcome it for that alone. It is long overdue, and we thank the Minister and the Government—although

a Conservative Government—for wasting no time in bringing in a Bill to stop some of the very nasty holes that previously existed in the operation of aircraft and the carrying of passengers by private companies that were not fit to do it.
I must confess that I find very little to quarrel with in the Bill. The powers taken by the Minister are sweeping and it would, therefore, be nice to know more about the Government's policy. We would then know the kind of decision the Minister would make and the pressure that the Minister would be likely to bring on the new authorities that he is setting up on certain interesting subjects.
I think that we have to make up our minds, once and for all, about the position of the independents vis-à-vis the corporations. Looking back in HANSARD, I notice that quite a few years ago I advocated a clear-cut rôle for the corporations. I said that all passenger schedules, both here and abroad, should go to them—the lot. I advocated that all charter flying, holiday flying, tours, trooping and freight carrying should go to the independents.
I thought that to be a sensible policy, without any ambiguity. We could have all planned ahead and gone ahead, with the corporations and the independents supporting each other. It was decided not to do that. It was decided, and by a Labour Government, to allow this overlapping. So it has gone on for many years, and it has caused a certain amount of chaos and some hard feeling in different directions. I do not know whether I have made it clear that I have an interest in this matter, but if I have not it is my duty now to tell the House of that interest.
It is really not good enough for right hon. and hon. Members—particularly those on this side of the House—to say, "Yes, there is a place for the independents, but it must be constricted, kept down, and made secondary." That is not good enough. No independent wants to take the place of the corporations. All independents are just as proud of the work of the corporations as are those who are not in aviation. No independent ever assumes that he could undertake their work. He neither has nor expects to have the resources or the backing.
What we have to settle today is whether we are to have independents at all. If we do not want them let us say so, and that is the end of it for them. But, if we do want them, it is not good enough to say that they must not do this or that. They, too, must be encouraged. They are British. Their aircraft are now becoming as British as those of the corporations. The pilots and crews are British. The whole thing is as British as the corporations. The independents have a part to play, and although I am speaking now as though I were on that side of the House in this matter, I hope that it will be recognised that I am speaking from my experience and the significance that I am on this side of the House will not be lost on hon. Members.
It is necessary that we should give them every encouragement. It is not good enough to put them in a position in which they cannot plan ahead. If they cannot plan ahead, it is not fair on them or their staff, or those who have invested their money in these enterprises. They must not be given the crumbs, but something worth while; that is, if we are to have them at all. If we are not to have them, let all of us on this side say so now.
I do not believe that any of my hon. and right hon. Friends will say that we do not want the independents. To be fair, I have never heard it said, but it has been said, or intimated, or hinted, "Let's have them, but do not let them affect the corporations?" Why not? Why should they not affect the corporations? I have never been one who wanted to see the corporations making millions of pounds of profit. They are doing a service—they are carrying the flag.
They are opening and developing routes under the British flag, and I do not see why we should always look for a money dividend on that. In any case, we shall not get one for many years. Profits, therefore, must not be the first thing in our minds, and here I repeat only what I have said before on air development and State corporations. If they lose money, what does it matter? If they are developed correctly, run efficiently, as we all know they are, why worry if an independent company is operating a route that a corporation may wish to operate in five years' time?
One hon. Member made some observations on the future of the new Board, and spoke of the difficulty there might be in the Board coming to decisions. I do not think that there has ever been an example of the present Board not being wise and perfectly fair in its decisions between the corporations and the independents. An exception to that might be the occasion when the Minister used his weight and influence with the Board at a certain time, and the decision was detrimental to the corporations, but the result was not anti-British. I am sure that we shall have the same high respect for the new Board as we have for the present one. Politics has not yet, to my knowledge, entered into the decisions and findings of the present Board.
Having made the position as difficult as I possibly can for myself both inside and outside the House, I should like to put one further point to my hon. Friends. The independents do not comprise just the big three or four companies. Some of them are small, developing on their own individual lines, parochially, and I should like to see, as I think, the House would this type of development going on that is tied to cities, places, zones and areas.
As I see the future—and I hope that the Minister will agree with me here—every city and town will have its airport, and its local independently-operating aviation company meeting the particular requirements of the town and area. Therefore, we must be very careful, when we consider this matter of the independents versus the corporations, that the term "independent" does not necessarily mean a company which is operating on the same route and the same line and skimming the traffic and cream away from the corporations.
As I said, I find it difficult to criticise—even more difficult would I find it to vote against—this Bill. I believe that it is time we had a Bill of this type. There are things in it which are wrong—or rather, not wrong but loose, which want tidying up. They are not clear. The Minister, I am sure, will feel that himself. However, there is one thing that the Bill does do, and, if it is for that alone, it must go through and go through quickly: it gives greater safety to the travelling public. We can save lives with


this Bill, and we can lose them if we fiddle about with it and stop it for some other reason.

5.40 p.m.

Mr. Paul Williams: The hon. and gallant Member for Derby, North (Group Captain Wilcock) plays an extremely respected part in British civil aviation not only by his own example and by his own dynamism but in a very enterprising concern, and he has, if I may humbly say so to him, made a remarkably well-informed and helpful speech today. He has made what some of us on this side of the House, although we may be personally committed to the independents' side, have been talking about and trying to get from his side of the House for some time, and that is a dispassionate review of the relative merits of all British air operators. We must get away—I shall return to this matter a little later—from what he himself said is a fictitious battle between the corporations and the independents, because often their interests do not clash, and often their interests and routes and operations co-operate with and support one another.
As the hon. and gallant Gentleman disclosed an interest in this industry, perhaps I should at this point again do the same thing myself, and more especially after the remarks of the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss), who implied that if perchance the present Minister were to leave his office in the next few weeks the hon. and gallant Member for Derby, North or I might try to make a take-over bid for his chair. There is certainly no attempt on our side, the side of the independents, to do anything of that nature.
I should like also to re-echo the remarks he made about the A.T.A.C. and, by implication, the great work it and Lord Terrington have done for a long time, often unthanked and for very little reward.
To take the speech of the right hon. Member for Vauxhall, it seemed to me that he exaggerated too much the consequences of this Bill, and inflated dangers which just do not exist. In fact, the changes being carried through in this Bill are relatively minor and relatively marginal. To suggest that this Bill is both imprecise and damaging to the

corporations seems to me contradictory. Also, to say that the Bill is imprecise and to ask for an independent board appears to be contradictory. It seemed to me that there was much criticism of himself in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman.
I should like to quote to the House the last sentence I used in the speech I made on 15th December when we last debated civil aviation. I said:
If my right hon. Friend will set his hand to the task of establishing a new licensing authority separated from political consideration, which bases its judgment on economic and operating efficiency, he will be doing what I suggested was his task, namely, establishing in this Parliament a new charter for British civil aviation."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 15th December, 1959; Vol. 615, c. 1316.]
On that note I want to congratulate my right hon. Friend on introducing a new, perhaps limited, charter for British civil aviation, in that it opens up new possibilities and gets away from many of the old shibboleths.
I support the Bill on four main counts—first because of the establishment of the independent Board; secondly, because of the introduction of the air operator's certificate; thirdly, because of the breaking of the monopoly of the Air Corporations Act, 1949, and, fourthly, because of the whole move towards the introduction of an air service licence.
First, on the establishment of the independent Board. In those words of mine which I quoted a few moments ago I used the phrase, "separated from political consideration." I must admit that I have a hesitation about the Board as it is constituted at the moment and whether, the Bill gives it enough independence. I have a feeling that there is still much power in the hands of the Minister. Some of the ways in which this new licensing authority will operate will, of course, depend on the calibre of those who are appointed to the Board. That is quite obviously one of the most critical things in the Bill. It is obviously nothing which can be disclosed or even implied in too great degree at this stage, but I would urge my right hon. Friend to consider seriously the appointments to the Board, in enabling it to be as independent as is humanly possible.
I recognise that much of the power which the Minister retains in his own hands by the Bill is inevitably retained. The matter of negotiation with foreign Governments must inevitably rest with the Government. Therefore, I conclude, on this question of the independence of the Board, that this is an experiment which is worth supporting, but which may well need to be reviewed at the end, perhaps, of five or ten years. In the interim, it seems to me that the independence of this Board will serve British aviation well.
The second reason I have for supporting the Bill is the introduction of the air operator's certificate. The hon. Member for Feltham (Mr. Hunter) and the hon. and gallant Member for Derby, North both referred to this essential ingredient of the Bill, the safety Clause which is introduced. I think that this is, perhaps, one of the most vital ingredients, because it is aimed at stopping up the existing loopholes which all of us connected with civil aviation know to exist. A result of this change should be to induce a sound assurance among intending passengers that the companies which will fly them and the aircraft in which they will fly will provide a high degree of safety.
Saying this, however, shows that the earlier regulations were lamentably inadequate. I think that this is another matter for welcome advice, but we in this House must receive the assurance that the safety standards demanded through the Bill will be sufficiently high to avoid repetition of the sort of thing to which the hon. Member for Feltham referred a few moments ago, the Southall accident. This is a charter of safety as well as a charter for aviation.
Now for the breaking of the monopoly of the Air Corporations Act, 1949. Obviously, that is a Measure which in practical terms has been out of date for some considerable time. Parliament in its wisdom is now catching up with fact. I thank the Government for having so speedily introduced a degree of reality into civil aviation, a degree of reality which has been missing for some years. This introduction of reality should enable us to meet the requirement to which the hon. and gallant Member for Derby, North referred, that we must now begin to think not of the independents versus the corporations but of all the

operators. That is the new point, the key point, in this Bill. We must get away from this old, sterile argument in relation to competition, and the Bill, although it may not be very immediate and tremendous in its impact, will have influence on the scope and size of British aviation in the years to come.
Finally, on the question of air service licensing, Clause 2 of the Bill, of course, is the crux. I would think that even the Minister would not be surprised if it were said that one or two Amendments are likely to be suggested to Clause 2. It is through that Clause, I feel, that some of the power which resides in the Minister's hands may appear to be rather great.
Again there are perfectly natural and logical explanations of this, for example, in relation to the question of negotiations on international relations. I would have thought it wise that the Minister should have power to instruct the Board to refuse applications which he knows that, in turn, he will have to refuse if they are applied for and granted by the Board. If because of international arrangements. France, for example, said that frequencies over a certain period were not to be increased, the Minister would seem wise to instruct the Board to refuse applications, because to allow an applicant to go through the whole rigmarole, all the expense and the time and the tedium, would be wasting the efforts of the Board and of other genuine applicants.
Although I have hesitation about the Minister's powers, I understand that in many cases they are felt to be in the interests of aviation itself. My conclusions about the Bill are fairly simple. It can be used to increase the safety of British civil air transport. It can become a charter of fairness between all operators. However, the hesitation which I have generally about the Bill is that it does not appear to do enough—perhaps that is not possible in a Parliamentary Bill—to stimulate greater British efforts and to meet the demand of my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden) that Britain should be flying a greater proportion of world routes than she does today.
I should be happy if at some suitable stage the Board could be given an overriding instruction that its main aim


should be to promote an increase in British air transport and a greater share of world traffic. If this is the major undertaking which the Board shoulders, the Board will do well and the Minister will have done well by the nation.

5.53 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Skeffington: I do not want to detain the House for very long. I want to confine my remarks almost entirely to that part of the Bill which deals with safety, though I should like to make one comment at the end of my speech on the other part. It is true, as my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham (Mr. Hunter) said, ever since the Southall disaster we have been waiting for the first part of this Measure which seemed to us very necessary to prevent any possibility that such a disaster should occur again, in so far as these things can be prevented by human action.
I am sure that it will be appreciated that those who live and work near London Airport were deeply disturbed by that incident. A slight change in the flight path, or a slight variation in the speed of the machine, or of the wind, and the disaster could have happened elsewhere with possibly even greater loss of life. It seems from what the Minister has said, and from my hasty perusal of Clause 1, that the Bill will go a very long way towards allaying the fears that, in future, it will be possible far an aircraft to be in the air either without proper maintenance and servicing or with incompetent personnel. We can also take it that if the Air Transport Licensing Board does the job in the way that is envisaged, it will also be impossible for either the machine or the personnel to be overworked, which was obviously among the factors which accounted for the Southall disaster.
We shall have to examine the Bill in more detail in Committee to see how the Clause is to be applied and how effective its sanctions are, but the safeguards seem to me to be considerable and very much better than anything we have had up to now. I am sure that my constituents, and people who live round London Airport and other airports, will be very grateful that the Measure has reached the Floor of the House.
It will be appreciated, I hope, and particularly by hon. Members who are more interested in getting the machines in the air and flying them, that those of us who express concern about safety are not just seeking to add further burdens on those engaged in air transport, either the corporations or the private operators. But when one realises the considerable risk that must exist round airports, there is a responsibility upon those who represent constituents living in such areas to see that their fears and their needs are not forgotten in the House. I am sure that that will be appreciated by every hon. Member.
Some figures were recently given in Flight relating to major disasters in Europe since the war up to 1958. Out of 570 major disasters, 380 had occurred either at take-off or at landing. Therefore, I am sure that the concern which we feel for residents and workers round the airports will be appreciated. We have only to think of examples at Munich and Belfast, and the incident involving the Vulcan at London Airport, to realise that these are places where trouble can more often be expected.
In so far as the new measures in the Bill will see to it that all reasonable precautions are taken in relation to the servicing and maintenance of the aircraft, this is a great step forward. I hope that, at the same time, this action will be matched by the best possible public relations between the Ministry, and London Airport and other airports controlled by the Ministry, and those who live round the airports. On previous occasions I have mentioned to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Aviation the arrangements at New York, where there is constant co-operation with the residents' associations. Details of the monitoring of noise are exchanged weekly, and also news about incidents, so that everyone knows exactly what is happening. People do not feel that they are being misled.
I mention this because I think that some of the good will and the real security which the Bill will create will not have an impact upon the minds of people if the fullest information is not exchanged between the Ministry and residents. There must be confidence between the parties. It is right, on the point of safety, to refer to a recent


example at London Airport. The South Harlington Residents' Association had asked for figures of emergency landings up to last year. For some reason, these were refused at the airport. I cannot think why, because I should have thought that people who live near the airport had a right to know how many emergency landings had occurred. When I put a Question to the Minister, the information given to me was, on the whole, reassuring when one considers the vast amount of traffic that goes in and out of London Airport.
In twelve months up to last May there had been only 30 full emergency landings. Even though there is an emergency landing, that does not mean that an accident follows. It means that the airport is prepared for a possible accident. Against the background of the traffic handled at the airport, those figures were not unduly perturbing. I hope that in future it will be thought highly desirable that the figures should be known, even if they are bad, let alone when, as in this case, they were reasonable having regard to the volume of traffic. When a great deal has been done to tighten up regulations dealing with the aircraft themselves, it would be a great pity if people still felt that there is a greater risk than in fact there is.
While I am dealing with safety, should like to mention that there has been a proposal for slewing the No. 2 runway by quite a small angle, which will mean that the take-off would be over open country instead of a considerable built-up area, as is the case at present at Cranford Cross. It is the built-up areas at new airports where trouble is more likely to happen than elsewhere. Unfortunately, at London Airport some of the nearest houses are only 2,400 feet from the end of the runway. Consequently, a slight slew of the take-off run would obviate a considerable danger. I am sure that I speak for a considerable number of my constituents when I say that we are grateful for this part of the Bill. I hope that every possible step will be taken to ensure that the provisions are adequate and effectively applied, as I think will be the case.
I have no great enthusiasm for the other matters in the Bill. It is unfortunate that measures for safety have been mixed with measures giving

greater freedom to private airlines. There may be a case for doing so, but it is a pity to put these provisions in the Bill, because many of us who will give full support to the safety precautions cannot give it to other measures which we think have considerable defects.
I was glad to hear the Minister say that he did not want to do anything to weaken B.O.A.C. or B.E.A. We shall watch and try to ensure that this does not happen. However, the kind of developments which will be allowed to take place under this Bill will inevitably affect the financial fortunes of the two corporations. I could not understand the supporting speech made by one hon. Member, who seemed to suggest that any competition must of itself inevitably improve matters. I should have thought that the watchword or principle for air transport, in view of the vast capital investment in it, would be co-ordination, not competition. This has been true of all transport, and it is particularly true in the case of air transport.
I could not help thinking, when the hon. Gentleman the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden) was speaking very much on the same theme, of his part of the country when there was competition between the rival railways serving the South. I was thinking of the old London, Chatham and Dover Railway and the London and South Eastern Railway. One has only to read the correspondence columns of The Times of sixty years ago to realise the deterioration of the service when that fierce competition was at its height. Indeed, the Railway Commission said that what was wanted in south-east England was the co-ordination of resources and not rival systems which, of course, provided a good service where this was profitable but an appalling service where it was not.
From what has been said this afternoon I find myself dissatisfied with that part of the Bill, and I only hope that it will not do as much harm to the air corporations as I fear it may.

6.3 p.m.

Sir Wavell Wakefield: I had not intended to intervene in the debate until I was provoked to do so by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss), who


spoke first for the Opposition I have been interested in aviation for many years. My uncle made the first successful flight on Windermere, forty-nine years ago. It is now forty-three years since I first flew as a pilot, and as well as being a pilot I have been interested in recent years in commercial independent aviation in this country.
If I understand aright, the Opposition are opposing the Bill because they fear that the corporations may be undermined, and that, as a result, British aviation may suffer. That fear is groundless, because we have in our State-owned lines two very fine corporations backed by immense sums of taxpayers' money, with the latest aircraft in the world and with some of the latest aircraft ordered for years ahead. Those corporations are operating some of the best and most profitable services in the world and there is not the slightest chance of them being undermined by the Bill.
If we look at the future of aviation we can foresee a great expansion not only of passengers, but also of freight. If we also look at the flow of passengers and freight in the world, we must face the fact that British aviation is sliding behind. More and more goods and passengers are being carried by other countries in proportion to ourselves. As I see it, the Bill will give an opportunity to British aviation as a whole to get a greater proportion of that expanding trade.
I believe that the corporations will continue to expand and will continue to carry more and more passengers and freight. Equally, I hope, because of the protection which will be given by the Bill, that the independents will have far greater opportunities than they have had in the past to participate in that expanding world trade. What will this mean? It will mean greater employment in this country for our skilled men in the maintenance and service of aircraft. It will also mean a greater number of British aircraft being needed, and, therefore, built in British factories. All this will mean more employment and activity in Britain.
I suggest that by opposing the Bill hon. Gentleman opposite are really saying that they do not want so much air

activity in this country, that they do not want so much employment in the aviation industry. I am sure they do not mean that, but, in effect, that is what they will mean by opposing the Bill. I am certain that it will give a new and fresh lease of life to our aviation industry, which is what we want.
The right hon. Member for Vauxhall also criticised the Bill by saying that Parliament should not be asked to pass a Measure the wording of which is so vague and whose effects on the future are not known. I suggest that it would be wrong to have too tight, too specific and too rigid a Bill. Why? Because in the aviation industry, which is expanding so fast, it would be unwise to tie the new authority too closely and too tightly to the future. The new authority should be given the opportunity to use its intelligence and to use the provisions of the Bill to help British aviation to be even more successful than it has been in the past.
It is, therefore, a good thing that the Bill is somewhat vague. After all, when hon. Gentlemen opposite passed their various Measures for nationalisation, they could not have foreseen the results. Indeed, hon. Gentlemen opposite have said again and again that they were passing Bills for nationalising various industries and that they could not envisage the result of their actions. So I suggest that it is not a bad thing that the Bill should give flexibility to the authority.
In common with other hon. Members, I greatly welcome the safety provisions of the Bill. It is essential that the travelling public should be fully assured that if they fly British they are flying in the safest possible way. It is horrifying to think that, until this Bill becomes law, anybody can put a four-engined aircraft into the air—which, if on a private charter flight, can carry 70 or 80 people or more—more easily than a London taxicab can be put on the streets. That is why I am sure that we all welcome the safety provisions.
It is everybody's intention that fares, both for freight and for passengers, should be reduced as rapidly as possible. The freight structure is rather like a cone, with its apex at the top; every layer that can be cut out by lowering prices means a considerable expansion of freight carrying. I hope that every


encouragement will be given to this licensing authority to assist in lowering fare and rate structures, not so that there will be a free-for-all, or a reduction in the ability to pay good wages, or that safety factors will be weakened or undermined, but so that there will be encouragement for more and more transportation of people and goods by air. What happens if a company, which does not, perhaps, belong to I.A.T.A., decides to reduce its fares? Is it allowed to do so? It would be helpful if this could be clarified by the Government.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on bringing in the Bill, and earnestly hope that in the years to come it will result in stronger and more flourishing State corporations, side by side with a powerful, efficient, independent aviation industry for the benefit of employment, aircraft manufacturing and everything that goes to make up a successful industry.

6.13 p.m.

Mr. John Rankin: I have listened today to some astonishing speeches from the benches opposite. The hon. Member for St. Marylebone (Sir W. Wakefield) wants lower fares and many of his colleagues joined in that demand. They want lower fares with greater safety and better aircraft, together with air terminals of the present high quality, and the comfort which is provided for passengers from all over the world who use our services. They want to increase all these things so that more people will use our flights, and at the same time they want to lower fares.
I hope that the Minister, or the Parliamentary Secretary, will tell us how these things are to be done under a capitalist system, of which we have heard so much today, and which we are told, almost in so many words, is going to put us back in the race in which we have been left behind. Perhaps he will tell us how this system, which we are told can do so much because of the great financial and manipulative geniuses who run it, will supply the answer, assuming that the Minister cannot give it, if it gets the chance. We have never had any notable proof that under capitalism we could reduce fares, increase the standard of living, or produce any of the benefits which, we have been told today, the

national air services have failed to provide.

Mr. P. Williams: The independents, wherever they have been allowed to do so, have consistently reduced fares.

Mr. Rankin: That may be the case, but I have flown in aircraft operated by some of those services, and, even with the reduced fare, I would rather go by a nationalised corporation every time. I have flown in one of these independent aircraft where the individual who was serving breakfast to the passengers was doing a sweated job. I saw that myself.
We have been told various other things. We have been told about the virile, expansive nature of private industry. I do not quarrel with that, because that virility and expansiveness are coming from the public money being pumped into it. One can scarcely mention a private project today which is not clamouring for public assistance in order to enable it to do the things that we have been told it can do of its own accord.
We were given an example in Pan-American Airways by the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden). According to him, Pan American Airways are doing without any help things that we are failing to do—such as attracting customers—while at the same time the post office subsidy which they have been getting is being steadily reduced. But the hon. Member failed to tell us that another subsidy has come into the hands of Pan American. They are now getting 100 million dollars as a subsidy from the United States Government. We heard nothing of that.
It is against that that B.O.A.C. has to compete. Pan American Airways get that 100 million dollars for clearing from the sea the flying failures that flop back into the ocean from Cape Canaveral from America's attempts to hit the moon. These missiles return to the sea and Pan American Airways clear away the debris. They get 100 million dollars to do it and thus they operate with less worry than B.O.A.C.
We are told that B.O.A.C. only gets 9 per cent. of the trans-Atlantic business as compared with Pan American's 52 per cent. That was perfectly true, but at London Airport one sees that American passengers mostly travel by American planes, and as America has a population


which far outnumbers our own, a gross national income greater than ours and individual incomes reaching a higher standard, obviously far more Americans will cross the Atlantic by plane than will British people. That accounts for this discrepancy in the percentage results which appear to be so much to our detriment.
I do not want to spend too much time dealing with what was said by hon. Members opposite, because I have several comments of my own. However, I want to refer to the speech of the hon. Member for Gillingham who chided us with being responsible for the loss of air traffic. I wonder what the Tories were doing. They have been in Government since 1951 and they have had the power to issue directives. Why did they not do so? They have been doing nothing helpful since they came to power in 1951, and yet responsibility for the problem is now placed on our shoulders.
The hon. Gentleman said that we failed because we concentrated on building up a monopoly. That that charge should come from the party of monopolies, amalgamations and mergers, with all its agglomeration of capital and interests, is fantastic. Then I discovered that the hon. Gentleman was going back to 1924 and saying that if things had been done properly at that time we would not have difficulty today. But 1924 was a year when a Tory Government came to power and a time when we had hardly known a Labour Government—a minority Labour Government had preceded it in office by consent of the Liberals. Save for two years, from 1924 to 1939 the Tory Party was in office and if the Tories had wanted to do anything politically to help the development of British aviation, they had undiluted power to do so. On the evidence which they themselves have supplied, the Tories have done absolutely nothing. Now they blame the Labour Party for the result.
With other hon. Members, I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on introducing the Bill. It has been said that he has shown his usual rugged determination in bringing it in and that he will show that continued rugged determination in putting it through. We are all familiar with it, because he

showed the same rugged determination when putting through the 1957 White Paper on Defence, which has created the trouble now facing him as Minister of Aviation. He must now show that rugged determination in helping to clear up the difficulties which his rugged determination caused in 1957. That is a tough job, yet I hope that he will be successful.
I agree with the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. P. Williams) about the need for the independent Board and for the air operator's certificate as a safety measure. I wish that when considering the need for the certificate the right hon. Gentleman had remembered to extend his safety measures. He will recollect that a few months ago we discussed the need for unified control when aircraft were landing or taking off. That, too, is a safety measure. I would have welcomed the introduction of two Bills. One could have gone through with the complete approval of the whole House and would have dealt with safety in all its aspects; while the other would have dealt with the licensing system which will be subjected to much criticism.
The hon. Member for Sunderland, South welcomed an independent authority to license services. At that stage I recollected that the right hon. Gentleman seemed to diminish his own authority. He emphasised that this was an independent body, with the emphasis on "independent". But almost every page of the Bill testifies to the fact that it may be far more dependent on, than independent of, the Minister. In Clause 1 we find the phrase:
… the Minister may by instrument in writing
do this. In another Clause we find:
The Minister may by Order
do that. In yet another example we find:
Except with the consent of the Minister … the Board shall not grant
something else.
That phraseology runs through the Bill. It may be, as the right hon. Gentleman said, that the powers are not very great, but they are nevertheless vested in him. It is true that he may not choose to invoke them, but he is given great power. I do not


quarrel with that, because it means that everything which is now done by the independents will be within the scrutiny of the House. That is a new pattern. It would have been interesting if we had had it many years ago. I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on this new pattern.
The right hon. Gentleman has two very important powers. One is power over international fares, contained in Clause 2 (5, b). Domestic fares are to be under the control of the Board, but international and cabotage fares are to be under the control of the Minister, so that the Board will be deprived of another power which it might have had to influence the rate-making functions of the international fares organisation.
The right hon. Gentleman explained that. He said that international air agreements would not be under the control of the Board. So long as the Board does not have any policy-making powers about international agreements and fares, it is obvious that, whatever its members may think, the person in control will be the Minister. I do not know that I shall seriously object to that because, as I have said, it will bring Parliament more closely into association with this work.
Clause 2 (2) deals with those things which the Board "shall consider in particular". It is remarkable that there is no reference to the public interest. One would have thought that the Board would have considered the public interest. Despite all that we have heard from hon. Gentlemen opposite, the Board is not bound to consider in particular the expansion and promotion of British air transport. Again I would have thought that that should be regarded as a chief function of the Board.
We are told that the Board will regulate services. To us, regulating means getting a bigger bite out of the business at present done by the corporations. Unless we presuppose what hon. Gentlemen opposite presupposed, some unprecedented increase in traffic, which we all hope for, any benefits to the independents must come from a bigger bite of the existing business. Where will the increase come from? Last year the total loss on world air traffic was £57

million. That loss was not borne by us alone. It was carried by some of the countries which were applauded by hon. Gentlemen opposite tonight. Out of that £57 million loss we are to promote and expand British air traffic and prevent the corporations being affected by the Bill. I want to hear what the Minister will say in reply to this.
Under the Bill no definite purpose is assigned to the Board. There is no Clause which says that the Board has any particular purpose. I can suggest one purpose that it should have, and I hope that the Minister will agree. It should collect statistics from all the air companies that will be affected by the Bill. It should collect statistics of finance, traffic, profits and losses so that we will know exactly how the airlines which have so far kept their accounts private are getting on, and we can then see whether they will show the nationalised corporations how things should be done.
I intervened earlier to ask the Minister whether the Board would meet in public. He said it would. We welcome that. He said that the Press would be present, and we welcome that also, because it does not always follow that because a meeting is held in public the Press are present. We regard the presence of the Press at meetings of the Board as a desirable form of public accountability.
What has the Minister in mind? He has a most interesting mind, but it is extremely difficult to probe into it. It does not matter what kind of Question one puts at Question Time, his Answers are short, terse and never to the point. He is a master of evasion.

Mr. Chetwynd: Unlike my hon. Friend, the Minister is short and terse in his replies.

Mr. Rankin: I understand that we have until 10 o'clock to debate the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. Chetwynd) is on the wrong side of the House for me to deal with him on this question.
I have asked the Minister many Questions, but he has always managed to evade the issue. I wonder why he has introduced the Bill. Perhaps I know the answer, because I think he has indicated his purpose. He looked at the productive side and saw that there were too many companies trying to make a living


out of an industry which everyone says is not big enough to provide a living for them all. He therefore said to himself, "Now come on, curl up and combine into smaller groups." The Society of British Aircraft Constructors is no longer known by that name. It is now called the "Society of Both Aircraft Constructors."
The Minister has turned his attention to the operational side. He saw how successful his pattern was on the productive side. He looked at these 33 independents and found that some of them were still flying the D.H. Rapide, an aircraft that ought not to be flying across the sea if safety is to be considered. That is still happening among some of the independents. The right hon. Gentleman wisely took the view that just as there were too many people making aircraft there were too many people flying them. To what number does he propose to reduce these 33 companies? One, or two? I do not want to disturb him. I do not know whether he is reading the answer that he proposes to give later, but the House is entitled to know what is in his mind. He knows that he cannot bring 33 independent companies into the umbrella created by the Bill.
I do not know the number to which these companies will be reduced, but I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman is out to create one great merger of independents on the operational side to compete with the internal-State corporation. That is how he will get his competition.

Mr. Richard Collard: Did the hon. Gentleman say that it was dangerous to use a D.H. Rapide for sea crossings?

Mr. Rankin: No, I did not say anything of the kind.

Mr. Collard: I understood him to say that. If he did not, there is no need for me to correct him.

Mr. Rankin: I said that the D.H. Rapide is still being used for sea journeys. At a function I attended I spoke to one of the chiefs of one of these companies which was still flying D.H. Rapides across the sea. It is too long a distance for a machine of that kind.

Sir W. Wakefield: I have flown across the sea in a Rapide, and I felt very safe in it. I felt far safer in it than in modern aircraft, which are sometimes not properly tried out before going into service.

Mr. Rankin: On that line of argument the hon. Member would feel even safer in Noah's Ark. He should try that. That would take him even further back.

Mr. Collard: rose—

Mr. Rankin: Let me finish with one before I start on another. The hon. Member for St. Marylebone does not mean what he says.

Sir W. Wakefield: I do.

Mr. Rankin: Then are we to go back to the days of the D.H. Rapide? No. Now I will deal with the next one.

Mr. Collard: It is very serious to cast this sort of aspersion upon an aircraft which, although old, is giving good service. I believe I am right in saying that B.E.A. operates Rapides to the Scilly Isles.

Mr. Rankin: Let me make it quite clear that I am casting no reflections upon the D.H. Rapide. I have flown in it perhaps more often than any other hon. Member, and I have a great regard for it. I am merely saying something which is recognised and accepted by B.E.A., which has now got a replacement for the D.H. Rapide. The D.H. Rapide has been a useful machine, but it is now out of date. Any company with sufficient financial backing would scrap it and get something more modern, but many of these independent companies are not in a sufficiently good financial state to do so. That is what is causing so much of the difficulty in the industry. They just do not have the money. They are, therefore, trying to get it from the public purse. [Interruption.] I do not know where the money which is being put into the mergers is coming from if it is not coming from the Exchequer, and I do not know where the backing provided by this Bill will come from if it does not come from the Exchequer.
I suggest that the Minister is thinking not of 33 independents but of one. That one is to be a competitor with the nationalised service. There will probably be another competitor with


B.O.A.C., so we shall really have four corporations. That will damage either the nationalised corporations or the independents.

Mr. Sandys: I would ask the hon. Member to stop pretending to read my thoughts. He is wasting the time of the House, and he is hopelessly wrong.

Mr. Rankin: At least I have drawn that answer from the right hon. Gentleman. It is difficult to read his thoughts, but he is merely emphasising what I said.
The hon. Member for Gillingham referred to France and said that she was creating two other lines despite the fact that she had a State airline. He should know that the reasons for that are political.

Mr. Burden: But they have been in operation for years.

Mr. Rankin: The reasons are political. In French eyes it is not advisable to fly what would look like a State airline to certain parts of Africa, at the moment.

Mr. Burden: The hon. Member is hopelessly wrong. These airlines have been in operation for years. They have nothing to do with the present situation.

Mr. Rankin: Then the hon. Member is not thinking of the two airlines I am thinking of. In that respect he is as far out of date as he was when he talked about 1924. He is still there. I hope that he will soon join us, in 1960.
I have tried to suggest the purpose of the merger. I know that the right hon. Gentleman has said that I am wrong, and that there will be no attempt to coalesce the independents. But that is the present pattern, and not a new pattern which he said was to be created. If the present pattern is to continue, what a hopeless mess operational flying will get into, with all these small independent airlines seeking to cash in on the business of B.E.A., and perhaps B.O.A.C. Some day the right hon Gentleman may change his view, assuming that he stays in his present office longer than he stayed in his previous ones.

6.45 p.m.

Mr. Farey-Jones: I do not propose to follow the remarks of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin), because during the whole of his

speech he appeared to have both feet firmly planted in mid-air while travelling upside down. As the House knows, I have spent many years with aeroplanes, and, having listened to all the speeches of hon. Members opposite, except one, I find it impossible to understand the Opposition's attitude in referring to the present position as a fight between the independents and B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. It is rather as if we were trying to tether an old cart horse down and clip off his wings.
We have hardly begun to develop air transport. In Cleopatra's day there was a saying:
He who impedes the wheels of Pharaoh, let him be ground into the dust.
I can tell hon. Members opposite that if B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. carry out the responsibilities facing them in the next fifteen years they will have far more than enough to do. As for the independents, throughout the world the challenge of the air today is greater than it has been in the whole of my life, or even since Icarus flew too near the sun. We have not even begun to think about it properly yet.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Feltham (Mr. Hunter) for bringing up the subject of London Airport and the safety measures which are necessary. Many hon. Members are gravely worried about this question, as I am. We must carry out a complete rethinking of the future of air transport. We must think not of London Airport, but of airstrips all round the coast, as near to the sea as is Prestwick, with hovercraft services from them to the cities. We cannot go on constructing giant airports such as London Airport or La Guardia Airport. The challenge of the air is similar to the challenge of the roads. Our internal transport system is steadily becoming constipated, as is air transport in Europe. It is also becoming highly dangerous. We must consider how best to solve this problem.
The Minister's introduction of the Bill is something to be glad and proud about, but I should like him to know that the Bill is not wide enough or high enough. Nevertheless, it is beginning to provide help for air transport. I should like to see it extended to cover the situation that must develop in the next ten years.


Instead of arguing whether the independents will take business from the corporations, we should be thinking of what the real truth will be. The truth is that in the next ten or fifteen years we will have reached the age of the hovercraft.
Already, there are in existence "chopper" aircraft capable of lifting and putting down weights of up to 50 tons. Within three years at the most that figure will have been increased to 150 tons. All our main London railway stations should have flat roofs, so that hovercraft flying to and from the coast, or between cities, can deliver cargoes straight to their destination. We should envisage the appearance of London, Birmingham, Manchester and Glasgow in twenty years' time, instead of indulging in petty arguments about whether a few passengers will be taken from B.O.A.C.
Do hon. Members realise that every year for the last seven years traffics on the Atlantic routes have gone up by at least 30 per cent.? Today, we have aircraft capable of carrying 250 passengers, and if, as I think will happen, the Minister succeeds in getting his supersonic airliners, they will be crossing the Atlantic or the Pacific in six hours, carrying 500 or 600 people at 750 miles an hour.
Is it wise to indulge in this foolish argument about whether the independent airlines should be kept out or in? I am grateful that there is at least one hon. Member opposite honest enough to say that we must put the question clearly, "Do you want the independent airlines or not?" We have to be open and truthful about that. We must have air strips near the coast. I believe that fast flying inter-continental aircraft will have to start their approach run from the sea at least 250 miles away. There must be helicopters capable of carrying 50, 60 or 70 passengers to ferry people from these air strips to their destinations.
This Bill gives us a chance to do some rethinking. I hope that the Minister will not mind if I say that the type of personnel on the proposed Licensing Board is of paramount importance. Unless they are people with some knowledge of the past and imagination with which to face the future, heaven help us all.

6.53 p.m.

Mr. Richard Marsh: I share the belief of the hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Farey-Jones) that there is a great future for the helicopter or "chopper" aircraft, but I think the major contribution in that direction will be made by the State airlines. This has been an interesting debate because of the feeling of apprehension which has divided hon. Members on each side of the House. Hon. Members on this side of the House believe that this Bill is a device which will be operated against the State corporations for the benefit of independent airlines. Mention has been made by hon. Members opposite of the safety provisions contained in the Bill. I think we should be honest about this. No hon. Member would suggest for a moment that safety in the air is other than of the utmost importance. Hon. Members on this side of the House are as anxious as hon. Members opposite to ensure that safety regulations shall be as stringent as possible.
But this is not a Measure concerned solely with air safety. The prime purpose of the Bill is not to implement safety measures in aviation. At the most, those safety provisions were included as something which might be conveniently slotted into the same exercise. At the worst, one might wonder whether that was done to provide a camouflage to conceal the bigger issue—whether the other part of this Bill is designed to operate against the State corporations, to provide greater financial rewards for the independent companies at the expense of the State corporations and, therefore, at the expense of this country.
I have not been a Member of this House for very long, and I find it interesting to listen to hon. Members who make a speech on this subject and to speculate about their background. What fascinates me is that not one hon. Member has supported this Bill who has not a financial interest in a private airline. I think I am right in saying that, although there may be one exception. Each hon. Member has declared his interest and, with his hand on his heart, has said that he desired to help and assist the great corporations. Then, by the most ingenious and tortuous reasoning, he has endeavoured


to prove that if the competition which the State airlines have to face is increased, in some peculiar way the State airlines will be assisted. Hon. Members have endeavoured to prove that their interest is completely detached and objective. That may be so, but some of us remain unconvinced that this—as was said by the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden)—is consistent with the attitude adopted towards independent airlines ever since the State corporations were set up.

Mr. Burden: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. I said that I had recently become a director of an airline, but ever since I have been a Member of this House I have consistently held the view which I still hold.

Mr. Marsh: I accept what the hon. Gentleman says, but I am saying that the view which he has held consistently has been held by the independent airlines since the State airlines were set up.

Group Captain Wilcock: My hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Marsh) has made the serious statement that no one who has taken part in this debate supports the idea that the independent companies should exist unless they have some financial interest in the companies. I think my hon. Friend should be corrected. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have taken part in the debate because they are interested in the subject and have been concerned with aviation practically all their lives. There are other considerations besides finance, and I think my hon. Friend should realise that.

Mr. Marsh: I am grateful to my hon. and gallant Friend and to the hon. Member for Gillingham. I agree that his prime reason for speaking in this debate is that the hon. Member knows something about the industry. But in 1952, when he spoke in a similar debate, my hon. and gallant Friend—on whose pronouncements I place considerable weight because of his interest in the industry—said that under a Labour Government it was made clear that the scheduled services would be operated only by the public corporations and that that policy had his full support. Today my hon. and gallant Friend appears to have changed his tune.

Group Captain Wilcock: My hon. Friend cannot have heard the speech I made in which I said the same thing as I said on the previous occasion, that it did have my support. I also think the independent companies should have a share.

Mr. Marsh: I am grateful for that explanation from my hon. and gallant Friend. It has assisted me in my efforts to feel my way on this subject, but my hon. and gallant Friend also said in the debate in 1952:
The situation today is that the Government, pledged as they are—and this fact is well known—to support the independent operators, intend to grant them further opportunities of operating scheduled services. That is being done under the quite erroneous impression that the Government are thereby helping the independent operators. In other words, the Government intend to help the independent operator even if they ruin him in the process. That is what will happen to any but the largest combines in private enterprise.
He went on to say:
If the Minister intends to help the independent operator then he must allocate routes to him which fall under the category of profitable routes. If he does that he is deliberately retarding the development of public corporations. He cannot have it both ways."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th July, 1952; Vol. 503, c. 2274.]
I think my hon. and gallant Friend should take advice from his own speech on this point.

Group Captain Wilcock: My hon. Friend is quoting me to such an extent that I am sure he will give way again. This is eight years after the speech he is quoting. He is talking of a debate in 1952 when circumstances were very different from what they are today. There was very little development in the air in 1952. The corporations were losing millions at that time and the independents were having an extremely hard time. Now, when we are approaching a time when we want to look ahead, we should look at our legislation of the past to see whether it can be improved. When I spoke today I repeated almost the very remarks which my hon. Friend has quoted. I said that I thought there was a place both for the corporations and for the independents. I am sorry to have to make a second speech, but I wanted to point that out. Neither I nor anyone on this side of the House has spoken against the corporations. I hope my hon. Friend will remember that.

Mr. Marsh: I am sure the interests of everyone in this House are in the same direction so far as the corporations are concerned. All I am trying to work out is whether the measures the Government wish to introduce will benefit the corporations or not.
I come back to the point which has been made by hon. Members. In the past it has been suggested by people with a very intimate knowledge of the industry that competition against the corporations cannot assist the corporations. This is a point on which there can be honest disagreement on both sides, but one cannot maintain that this Bill is a sort of charter for the corporations and that there is not a very great risk, at the least, that a Bill such as this might cause the corporations considerable difficulties.
In opening the debate, the Minister went to great trouble to say that in fact this was not the intention of the Bill. He made the point that the independents were not the associates of the corporations but were, in fact, their rivals. Do not let us be naïve about this; if the independents can take trade from the corporations, they will do so. They are not in business for the benefit of their health, but to get as much as they possibly can—[An HON. MEMBER: "And it applies the other way round."]—and it applies the other way round. The only difference between us is that the corporations are devoted to the benefit of the community whereas the independents are devoted to the interests of a small group.

Mr. P. Williams: The hon. Member is arguing from a completely false assumption, that air transport is not going to expand. If he made that one concession to fact he might get nearer to truth.

Mr. Marsh: I am sorry to be causing this disagreement because I had set out to put some of the points which seemed to be fairly obvious. I have no doubt that air transport is going to expand. I do not think any hon. Member would deny that any corporation or section of the industry that cannot expand with it will go under. One of the biggest problems, and one of the worries of us on this side of the House, and I should think of hon. Members opposite, is that in this great. State industry, unless they can

claim an increasing share of business, the corporations will proceed to lose that degree of success which they discovered after tremendous effort in the past few years.
Who are the best judges as to the effect of this Bill and the effect of com petition upon the corporations? Obviously, they are the people who know best, the people in the industry. We have heard the view of the independents, but, of course, the view of the corporations is very different. The right hon. Gentleman knows that neither of the corporations views these proposals with anything but the greatest apprehension. Both have made the point in their last annual reports. I think that B.E.A. summed it up well when it said:
B.E.A. is not afraid of competition and we do not adopt a 'dog in the manger' approach to the expansion of the independent airlines. But we must oppose developments which would adversely affect our traffic and necessary future expansion.
The same sort of line is taken by B.O.A.C. There is no doubt that both the State corporations have been very worried about the possibility of independent airlines competing with them. One must accept that the corporations, which have some knowledge and interest, are extremely apprehensive.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss) dealt with the point about competition against the two State corporations. He asked why, if this was not the intention of the Bill, we should not have it stated. I should have thought that a perfectly simple thing, although since I have been here I have discovered that "shall" means "may" and "may" means heaven knows what, so I have ceased wondering what anything might mean. It seems a simple thing to insert in a Bill a proviso that no licence shall be granted if the granting of such a licence is against the interests of State corporations and they are unable to prevent it.
Some hon. Members on the back benches opposite say they are very much interested in this subject, but they chortled over that. Then they composed their faces and put on an expression to show that they were concerned for the wellbeing of the corporations. If they so wished, the Government could make a provision in the Bill to ensure that it does not operate against the interests of


the two corporations. If the Minister would come to the Dispatch Box and say that the Government were interested in doing something like that, I am convinced that that alone would make an enormous difference to the attitude of hon. and right hon. Members on this side of the House.
The hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd) made a heart-rending speech about independent airlines existing on the crumbs left by the corporations. We are talking about one-third of the total air travel in this country. They describe that as crumbs, but it is a pretty hefty sort of dinner. Hon. Members opposite tell us that the independents—due, I admit, to the efficiency of many of the independent companies and due to their initiative because they were forced into a position in which they had to fight or go under and rose very well to that challenge—have under their wing something like one-third of the total air traffic of the country. They have a rate of expansion which is higher than that obtained by the two State corporations. Do not let us paint a picture of poor, suffering private industry existing on a few meagre scraps left by the wicked State corporations who take all the cream.
One of the problems and difficulties with which we are faced is that this competition between the two sections of this essential industry is not fair competition. The corporations are faced with the same sort of problem that faces any State industry. They not merely have an obligation to make a profit. I should say that making a profit is one of the least important needs of a State industry. Their prime purpose is to produce a service for the people in the country as a whole. We believe that if the independents were prepared to operate on the same terms some of the routes operated by the State corporations they would find those routes uneconomic. I doubt whether there will be a big struggle to get into those routes.
What do the independent companies want? I do not know. The hon. Member for Watford mentioned, in passing, the North Atlantic route. Are the independent companies interested in that route, or are they interested in the internal Scottish routes?

Mr. James Dempsey: Why mention Scotland?

Mr. Marsh: It would be impossible in a debate in the House not to mention Scotland if one wanted to remain in this party.
Because of the fact that they have to run uneconomic routes, the corporations are, and always will be, at a disadvantage compared with the independent companies. There is no doubt that the provision of frequent services on many routes results, and is bound to result, in a load factor of about 60 to 65 per cent. The hon. Member for Gillingham mentioned fares. There is no difficulty about decreasing fares if one can run a more infrequent service with a higher load factor. That is certainly one way in which it could be done.

Mr. Burden: Is the hon. Member aware that the average fare per passenger-mile in the United States is about 3d. and in Europe about 8d. and that there is, therefore, plenty of room for a reduction?

Mr. Marsh: I do not know the figures, but I have no reason to doubt those given by the hon. Member. One of the big problems is that the amount of assistance given to airlines in the United States is on a far larger scale.

Mr. Burden: No.

Mr. Marsh: Military contracts and trooping contracts given to certain American airlines are worth a large sum. I should like to see more done in the direction of trooping contracts in this country, if we want to have a healthy aircraft industry.
This is an extremely important subject which has much wider implications than the narrow argument whether we should allow the independent companies a little reign against the State corporations. In recent months in the House, certainly since I have been here, there has been constant criticism of the disregard of public money by the Government. Hon. and noble Members opposite have constantly complained about the apparent lack of concern by the Government for the taxpayer's pocket. This is becoming increasingly obvious. The Bill appears to some of us to be another example of how a Government can make sums of public money available to their supporters and to sections of private industry, directly and indirectly, because


if this Measure operates against the State corporations it will be the taxpayer who has finally to foot the bill, and in recent months he has had to foot some very large bills. One can understand the growing concern of some hon. Members opposite, which is reaching the stage at which we can hear their consciences rumbling in their stomachs right across the Chamber.

Mr. Farey-Jones: Is that where the hon. Member keeps his conscience?

Mr. Marsh: I shall be only too pleased to assist the hon. Member and any others in a discussion on where people keep their consciences, if they have any. I am sure that in due course, if he ever develops a conscience, he will watch its position with great interest.
Large sums of public money have been given away in one form or another since this Government took office. They have given it away by two methods. The first is by straight gifts of large sums of public money and the other is by the misuse of State industries. The denationalisation of the road haulage industry was a classic example of a magnificent gift of the nation's money to private firms.
Now we are to improve the position of the independent airlines, knowing that this is bound to react against the State corporations and, if it is continued, to result in a deterioration in a State industry and a consequent payment by the public of a subsidy, as has happened so often in the past, to private interests. One can understand the moral justification, as it were, for this. After all, large sums of money were spent by sections of British industry in the last election, and one expects that they will begin to receive their just reward, if not in Heaven at least in the House.
The taxpayer has invested in recent years large sums of money in the two State corporations. In the early days the State corporations met tremendous obstacles, primarily because of their lack of experience in international aviation. In recent years they have overcome most of those difficulties. For the last six years B.E.A. has been a profitable corporation.
There is agreement in the House that air transport is probably the most deli-

cate industry in international affairs. It is highly competitive, indeed to the highest degree. It is extremely sensitive to fluctuations of politics and of financial trends in the world. Because of this, anything which adds to the difficulties of either the corporations can only increase the possibilities that they will cease to remain as profitable as they have been in recent years.
Turning back to the degree of competition between the two sides of the industry, it is a fact that the two corporations provide many services for this country which are not expected of any independent company. The preoperational development burdens which fall on the two State corporations are enormous and are of considerable value not only to the corporation but to the whole of British aviation. If we are to have competition, we might well claim that there should be some balancing factor to allow for the extra problems which beset the State industry. Earlier, B.O.A.C. was making very heavy weather. It is not nearly as profitable today as B.E.A., but it has proved that as a State corporation it can operate in the most competitive sections of the world very well.
What is the position? In the 'sixties, the degree of competition will be much more intense than ever before. Speed will increase. The expenditure upon new types of aircraft will be enormous. I understand that at present B.O.A.C. has on order aircraft to a total cost of over £90 million. This proves that State corporations have to attain a degree of operating efficiency higher than that generally accepted by the independent companies. Many independents operate aircraft which are to some extent outdated. The State corporations lead this country and other parts of the world in providing modern aircraft.
All this involves tremendous expenditure of public money. We on this side do not feel that the State corporations should be used to provide a sort of milch cow helping the independent companies to compete, not on equal terms, but on very unequal terms. I say without any shame whatsoever that the corporations, which are backed by the public purse and are representative of the country, deserve from the House more consideration than any private company.
Everyone will agree that the prime purpose of Members of Parliament is to look after the British taxpayer and the British citizen, and not to look after small private companies. If the purpose behind the Bill is nothing more than to tighten things up, to allow fair competition and to introduce safety measures, the Parliamentary Secretary can easily say, in winding up the debate, that the Government are prepared to write into the Bill an undertaking that they will not grant licences which appear to militate against the interests of the State corporations.
If we cannot have such an undertaking, most hon. Members on this side will not feel disposed to assist the Government to place a State industry and the British taxpayer at a disadvantage so that we can transfer a few more tens of millions of pounds of public money to the pockets of private companies.

7.22 p.m.

Mr. Stanley McMaster: I should like, very briefly, to answer a few of the points made by the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Marsh). I say straight away that I have no financial interest in any independent company. Of course, I have a financial interest in B.O.A.C., as has every taxpayer.
The hon. Gentleman said that he is concerned with the taxpayers' money. Does he think that it would be in the taxpayers' interests for these large boards—B.O.A.C. and B.E.A.—to be completely free to run a monopolistic concern free from competition? The Bill ensures that any competition which arises will improve the efficiency of B.E.A. B.O.A.C. and the independent airlines, and is in the interests of the taxpayers and the travelling public.
We have heard that a return fare to Paris of about £3 would be possible by independent airlines running bus services to Paris. The travelling public must be considered. The taxpayer cannot be continually asked to subsidise an industry which has a complete monopoly.

Mr. Marsh: It is not a fact that the State corporations have a monopoly. Does not the hon. Gentleman agree with that?

Mr. McMaster: In many cases State corporations have a monopoly. There

are scheduled services. The situation arises under the 1949 Act, which is being relieved in the Bill, whereby the independents have only a small share of the market. They should be given a fair share of the market. Strong independent companies or strong independent combines are in the public interest, because they can reduce fares and reduce the burden on the taxpayer. They can also help B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. to compete with foreign airlines more efficiently.
I wish to make one point to the Minister in connection with the appointment of the Board. Paragraph 1 of the Schedule says that the Board, which
shall consist of not less than six nor more than ten members
is to be appointed by the Minister. This, along with the provisions in Clause 5 (1, c), which allows an appeal to the Minister, is a matter of some concern. It means that the Minister, who is in the position of an interested party, will appoint the Board and that he, or his nominee, will sit to hear appeals.
It might be possible to qualify the provisions of paragraph 1 of the Schedule so that the Board which is to be appointed will be fairly representative of independent and State boards. In addition, appeals should lie to a completely independent arbitrator. It is not fair to the Minister to ask him to decide any dispute as to issuing or granting a new licence to an independent along the lines set out in Clause 2. I should be grateful if the Parliamentary Secretary would say something about this when he replies to the debate.

7.27 p.m.

Mr. George Chetwynd: This has been a very remarkable debate indeed, because it has shown quite clearly the different approach of the two major parties in the country to what is a great issue of public policy. I shall return to that theme a little later.
First, I wish to say that we are in complete agreement with the safety provisions of the Bill. My right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss) welcomed them. My hon. Friends the Members for Feltham (Mr. Hunter) and Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington) spoke of the great satisfaction it would give to their constituents to have the safety provisions


in the Bill. It is clear to me that safety is one of the major considerations in any person's mind when deciding whether he shall travel by air, sea or land. That is probably the first consideration, more than cost or speed. Therefore, anything which we can do through the Bill to improve safety in all aspects of aviation will be much appreciated.
I have only one question of this aspect. Will there be any major additions to the regulations which have so far been issued under Section 8 of the Civil Aviation Act, 1949? If we could have some information about any extra provisions which may be made to avoid such an accident as we had at Southall two years ago it would be very welcome.
We certainly approve of bringing in the non-scheduled and charter operations, covering them in the Bill and making it absolutely impossible for the sharp operator to run his business. Some people think that this could well have been done in a separate Measure if necessary. Although we do not object to it being dealt with in the Bill, we regard it as the main purpose of the Bill to deal with the relationship between the public corporations and the independents in future allocations of aviation business.
At one stage in the debate I thought that I was in the wrong place. I rather thought that I was at the annual general meeting of the British Independent Air Transport Association. It seemed to me that all the arguments which the Association has put forward in its meetings between 1952 and now were being made tonight, not only by hon. Members opposite but also by one of my hon. Friends. I do not object to that. They have a perfect right to put those claims forward, and the hon. Gentlemen concerned declared their interest.
One thing which was significant in the debate and which emphasised our fears of what the Bill might bring forth was that, although the Minister probably expected some very fierce attacks to be made on him by his hon. Friends, because of their view that perhaps he had not gone far enough in satisfying the independent interests, he had a favourable reception from his hon. Friends on this point.
I think that those hon. Members read far more into the Bill than the Minister himself has been prepared to indicate tonight. One of the weaknesses of what we have so far had is that we really do not know what the Minister has in mind. We must probe much further to find out, and I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to give us more information on how the future activities of the independents and the corporations are expected to work out.
We have been asked: what about the place of the independent? We certainly admit—indeed, my right hon. Friend did so at the beginning of his speech—that we are not against the independents as such—certainly not. It was the Labour Government, in 1949, that enabled them to step up their business to a very considerable extent and, over the last eight years, they have been able to develop their interests from very small beginnings to 30 per cent., if not 33⅓ per cent., of all operations in this country.
We believe that there is a place for both forms of operation, but the argument is, and must be, over how much is to be in one sphere and how much in another. The argument will be over the allocation of space. We think that there will be a vast expansion of air traffic. The corporations are certainly basing all their future planning on a tremendous increase in air travel, and we should be very foolish indeed if we did not think that the independents should not get a considerable part of that expanding air business. That is inevitable, even under present arrangements. I therefore want to make it quite clear that the corporations, which are our chosen civil aviation instrument, must be viable in order to take part in this expansion, and so benefit the public interest.
I have been really touched by the solicitude that certain hon. Members opposite have displayed for the wellbeing of the corporations. It is most helpful to us. I only hope that if, in Committee, we move Amendments to establish those principles in the Bill, we shall get their support; but I very much doubt it.
In the Bill we are trying to establish a relationship between the independents and the corporations. We are giving this new Board an extremely difficult


task, with the vaguest of instructions to help it carry out the policy. Really, two contradictory policies are being advocated. The Minister has said on more than one occasion, as have his predecessors, that there is full ministerial support for the corporations as the main flag carrier of the nation, and that nothing he wishes to do, and nothing he intends to do, will undermine that position. At the same time, there is pressure from the independents' spokesmen to get a greater share of the existing air business. All Ministers have had to face this dilemma. I thought that after the 1952 changes in policy—which have been working out gradually over the years—we had reached a stage of peaceful co-existence in this struggle but, apparently, I am wrong.
Some hon. Members opposite have spoken as though the Labour Party and its policy had restricted the development of the independents, but that cannot be seriously maintained for a moment when the facts are studied, because even now we have reached what I look upon as a reasonably satisfactory modification of the 1949 Act, working out in practice.
We have had the growth of the independents up to as I say, about 30 per cent. of the business being carried. We have the significant suggestion that we are stopping competition, as though this were a field in which there was not real cut-throat competition between one national enterprise and another. The hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster) spoke of there being no competition, but he has only to pick up any newspaper to see the prestige advertisements of all the world airlines competing with ours for the trans-Atlantic and Continental traffic. The competition is tremendous.
The tendency of the independents has been against competition. They are now formed into four main and powerful groups of companies who, between them, carry 90 per cent. of all the independent traffic and we have had an indication this morning of a merger between two of the largest companies. That will provide a fairly formidable organisation, which should well be able to stand on its own in the world of air transport.
I want now to refer to the speech made by the Minister at the annual dinner of

the independents—I think, early this year. As reported in The Times, he
… wondered whether some of the independent companies might not think it worth while to join to form a smaller number of units.
In anticipation of what? Airwork and Hunting Clan were fairly quick off the mark, but what are they anticipating? For what purpose was it to be worth their while to get together?
The Minister has been rather good at inducing people to join together, and we want to know what inducements have been proffered to the independents to this end. We have tried to find out in this debate exactly what the independents want. I asked, but I got no answer. They certainly have not been getting just the crumbs as has been suggested.
I think that it was the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd) who referred to the "poor" independents, but that is not right. They have not been crippled by previous legislation. I should like here to quote from an interview between Mr. Frank Beswick and the chairman of Eagle Airways, reported in a recent isue of Flight. This is what Mr. Bamberg said, and he is probably the archetype of the independents, with whom, I believe, the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden) is associated.
Mr. Bamberg said:
We see our future largely in terms of international scheduled flying"—
With whom will that competition be? Obviously, it will be with the corporations—
both passenger and freight. Even under present arrangements he confirms that his company has the largest British network of independent scheduled services in Europe, with 12 routes in Europe now showing a profit.
That does not sound as though we have been preventing this enterprising organisation from going ahead.
Mr. Bamberg went on:
Like others, I accept that the corporations' basic interests must be protected: they are a vital part of British aviation. But there is still scope for parallel services and the new Board has the job of deciding where they will be.
This issue of scheduled parallel services goes right to the root of it all, and if the private companies are to get a parcel of scheduled services handed to them from the corporations, or are allowed to run in parallel to places to which the


corporations go now, it seems to us to be against the interests of the corporations.

Mr. Burden: The point is that out of last year's total traffic of 69 million passengers only 3 million came through British airlines. There is obviously a tremendous opportunity for enlightened operation on that scale, and we must take it if we are to retain our position as a great commercial nation.

Mr. Chetwynd: Until B.O.A.C. had misfortune with some of its aircraft we had been getting an increasing share of world traffic, and we are now going ahead again. If we take the North Atlantic route alone, B.O.A.C. is pulling in more and more of the world traffic, and I understand from the very good advertisements of B.E.A. that one out of ten people travelling in Europe travels by B.E.A. What it all comes down to is that hon. Members opposite are trying to denigrate in this sort of way the achievements of the corporations.
Let me ask this question of the Parliamentary Secretary. It is proposed to give the independent air lines scope to expand, in spite of the fact that the Minister wants to maintain the corporations as the main flag-carriers on the international routes. May I ask this simple question: where does he propose that they shall expand? Which part of the kingdom of B.O.A.C. and of B.E.A. is to be handed over? If we look at what the companies are able to do at present in the spheres of charter work, trooping, freight, scheduled routes in association, which we agree must be put right, car ferries, colonial coach, inclusive tours and possibly in the near future very low fares, that is giving a good field to the independents in which to operate.
We have to ask definite questions. It is no good talking in airy-fairey fashion about wanting to give them greater chances. We have got to ask, "Where? What next?" There are two main areas of possible conflict between the corporations and the independents. One will be affecting B.O.A.C. with the routes to Africa and perhaps to the Far East and the Caribbean, and the other one will be affecting B.E.A. mainly on its European high traffic services. B.E.A.

operates social service routes. Not much has been said of them today, but they are operating uneconomically to give services to the Highlands and Islands and to the Isle of Man which they are covering by the proceeds of what they make on their other routes.
It is extremely unlikely that any independent will come forward and offer to take this route off B.E.A., and if such an offer were made by an independent it would want a subsidy or a return for doing it. If an attempt were made to operate such a service without a subsidy, after a little while the independent operators would say, "We are sorry, but we cannot carry on at the prices we are getting The alternatives are that the fares go up or the service is suspended, or we get a subsidy." It is clear that they will not want to take over some of the corporation's marginal routes. They are not in business for that sort of thing. They are in business to get as much as they can out of it, and that is understandable. There is a case, perhaps, for certain peak services on highly seasonal routes, but they can do that now in association, if they wish, with the corporation.
There is the whole question of very low fares, and perhaps we shall hear something about that in the near future. In connection with that matter, certain complications may arise. It is a shrinking market because the colonial dependencies are reaching their independence, and then I.A.T.A. comes into the question. There is the question of foreign rights wihch will have to be negotiated—a very difficult question. There will be the possibility of avoiding undercutting and the disruption of the regular services which the airline corporations are running. Therefore, I should think that there is not a great deal of scope for the independents to operate in this shrinking market.
All this leads us to the point that there is nothing wrong with the original policy of the Labour Party in relying for the main international routes upon the policy of a chosen instrument, which, in our case, is represented by B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. The only part left where the independents are likely to want to come in are on the high density traffic routes. I think the hon. Member for Gillingham said that the Paris—


London air route was one which would offer a suitable field for the independents.
Let us examine that possibility. If we were to let an independent company come into this field, immediately the French would respond and say, "We want another line on this, too" and it would he almost impossible for the Minister to negotiate traffic rights on that basis. That, therefore, is a non-starter.

Sir W. Wakefield: The hon. Member must realise that already there is a London—Paris private independent service carrying tens of thousands of passengers.

Mr. Chetwynd: If that is so, what are we quarrelling about? If they have got this arrangement whereby they can do it in present circumstances, why is it required to be scrapped and something else put in its place? That is a different service from the normal B.E.A. scheduled Paris route. It is clear to us—and what we have heard only emphasises our conviction—that the independents are really interested in skimming off the cream from the best of the services. If they are allowed to do that, that will obviously jeopardise the position of the airline corporations.
We can see no place at all for disrupting the services which have been built up over twenty-five years in the case of B.O.A.C. and over ten years in the case of B.E.A. We can see the difficulties which will arise over trying to get reciprocity and foreign rights. The negotiating is bad enough as it is with one operator, let alone with two or three. This is going against the way in which European airlines have been steadily working.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall mentioned the case of Air Union. It is against all good experience. The corporations are working well. There is a tremendous investment in their present and their future. About £275 million of public money is already invested in the airline corporations. Their plans for bringing in new aircraft this year and in 1963 are running into hundreds of millions of pounds. We cannot expect corporations with liabilities and responsibilities of that kind to look with any favour upon a Government Measure which, to say the

least, is unsettling to them and which, if the worst comes about, will disrupt their activities.
If the kind of advice is given to the Board which we suspect, the effect on the corporations will be a material financial diversion of their proceeds. That is borne out in the Report of the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries and in the annual reports of B.E.A. and B.O.A.C. It would have a disastrous effect on the morale of the people employed in this industry, which is extremely high and very important indeed to the wellbeing of a State line. It would have a serious effect upon the future planning of the corporations. We could not possibly expect them to go ahead with their large orders for the Boeing 707, the VC10, the DH121 and the super-VC10 if their future were not assured to them. The whole of the aircraft industry is tied in with this. It is not just a question of the air transport side; it is a question of the industry as well.
Foreign competition would become extremely acute, and in that case it would be the companies with the largest resources which could rely upon their Government for the largest subsidies which, in the end would survive. I believe, also, that instead of leading to lower fares all round, the chaos would he such that it would mean a setback to the controlled policy of lower fares which the corporations are now actively pursuing. For those reasons, we want much more information about the Government's intentions.
The corporations are left with tremendous obligations and responsibilities. If there is to be competition, then let it be equal. The corporations have to pay interest on all their capital, whether they make a profit or not. They have got to maintain their scheduled services. They have got to take the rough with the smooth. They have got the heavy costs facing them in the future of introducing new British aircraft; and perhaps at this stage we might get from the Minister a little more definite information on what assistance he is going to give the corporations in introducing these new aircraft.
Whatever assistance the Minister gives, there is still a considerable amount of money to be found by the


corporations. They have got to carry out non-commercial investments in the furtherance of Government international policy, such as in the case of B.O.A.C., in Kuwait. They have got the higher standing charges, higher wages, higher maintenance and higher overheads. All those are extremely good reasons for not making it more difficult for the corporations to exist, but for trying to assist them even more.
It is a curious thing that this demand for greater help for the independents comes again at a time when the corporations are showing signs of getting on a sound footing. We have B.E.A. making a profit and carrying more people, and B.O.A.C. getting rid of the difficulties of the associated companies and probably coming out just on the right side of the line this year. They are just recapturing lost ground. They are earning more foreign currency and more dollars than ever before. They are making a bid at this stage to capture new markets in the world, and this is the time when the Government are creating more uncertainty for them and causing them considerable unrest and confusion.
As the Minister well knows this is an extremely marginal industry. The least little thing happening in international relations, the slightest recession in world trade, and all the plans for improved traffic go wrong. They are facing tremendous problems with their future aircraft and this is not the time in our view when we should be tinkering about with some means of helping the independents which we regard as worsening the position of the corporations.
The weaknesses of this Bill have been brought out very well so far. There is no provision whatsoever for public knowledge of what the Minister's observations to the Board will be. I am not referring to his observations on international traffic rights which may be inexpedient; I am referring to the general provisions of Clause 2 (2, g), whereby the Board must take note of any observations made to the Board by the Minister. Some of my hon. Friends have said that that is all right so long as we have the present Minister. If I read my Sunday papers aright, he will be the next Foreign Secretary or Chancellor of the Exchequer—we just do not know.
We may get the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. P. Williams) or the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden) in his place. What kind of observations will they make to the Board? Perhaps they would be different ones from those of the present Minister, but the point is that we would not know. There is no provision for telling us what these observations would be and it is obviously one thing which we would want to put right.
There is no question in this Bill of the new Board making an annual report to Parliament through the Minister. There was in the old A.T.A.C., but that has been dropped. We should like to have an annual report from the Board to the Minister in which we can see the directions which the Minister gives to the Board. There is no power under the Bill for the Board to call upon the airlines for full financial and traffic statistics. How can we tell the relative merits of one application against another on the scanty information that we have now? No one knows the financial state of the independents. No one really knows how much traffic they carry. Their finances are swallowed up in the parent groups, which are mainly the shipping companies, and here again we have a woeful lack of information about the whole thing.
There is no definition of purpose, as my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Marsh) said in his excellent speech. There is no provision apart from what the Minister has said orally for public hearings and, what is more important, there is no regard for the customers. The old A.T.A.C., whatever its faults, was meant to be a forum through which public complaints and suggestions could be brought forward. That, again, has been dropped, and it is something which ought to be brought in.
There is no obligation on the Licensing Board to adopt the positive things which I should like to put in Clause 2. All that it has to do under Clause 2 is to consider certain things and, having considered them, it need not do anything more about them. It can say, "We have considered it and we have not taken any notice of it." We wish to turn that round into a positive obligation upon the Board that where there is no proven need for a service, where a company cannot show clearly that it can carry


out a service and where there is a material diversion of the corporations' profits, it shall be an obligation on the Board not to grant a licence. I hope that, in view of the great concern of hon. Members opposite for the wellbeing of the Board, they will certainly help us on that.
The difficulties facing the independents, which we recognise, are not difficulties of the structure in the Bill. They are the difficulties of airline economics as a whole. They are not common to us, but they are common to all the world. It is our belief that the national corporations have not failed the nation. We believe that they have done a grand job. We think that they should be encouraged to go on doing that job in the future. This is not really a matter for political decision. It is a matter for economic decision and if the worst of our fears are realised the Bill could well be harmful and, indeed, disastrous in some cases to the future of the corporations.
Therefore, unless we can get a fairly firm assurance, which we have not had hitherto, we shall be compelled to oppose the Bill on Second Reading and in Committee we shall try to make it a much better and much more worthwhile Measure.

7.57 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Aviation (Mr. Geoffrey Rippon): We have had a very good debate with views fairly and thoughtfully expressed on both sides of the House. I thought that the hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. Chetwynd) put the position very fairly from his point of view. I hope that I may succeed in allaying some of his anxieties and those of his hon. Friends. I thought that he went very much to the root of the matter when, in the earlier part of his speech, he said that this was not a cut-throat industry. I thought that much of what he said indicated that there is really no great fear of damaging either the corporations or the independents.
I can assure the hon. Gentleman that he need not fear that the integration of the independent companies into stronger units is for the sinister purpose of undermining the structure of the corporations. They are forming stronger units for the reasons why my right hon. Friend indi-

cated when he moved the Second Reading. They are doing it because, in considering the granting of licences for any air service, one of the factors to which the new Board will have to have regard is the financial and other resources of the applicant. As traffic is expanding, as aircraft are becoming more expensive, and as new opportunities arise—and we have heard much about that today—it is imperative that operators should have sound financial resources.
Many of the questions which the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends have asked—what will the independents do; what will happen?—are, of course, all matters which it will be for the Board to determine in the first instance. It is important to recognise on both sides of the House that we are very much concerned to set up an independent and impartial body which can sift the evidence and weigh all the considerations. The great safeguard will be the public hearing. The hon. Gentleman said that we have only the oral assurance of my right hon. Friend about that. I am sure that he has no reason to be dissatisfied with that undertaking. It is clearly important that there should, normally, be public hearings.
The hon. Gentleman was concerned that the advisory functions of the Air Transport Advisory Council were being abolished and the new Board would be merely a licensing authority. If he looks at Clause 4 of the Bill, he will see that it substantially reproduces the advisory functions of the Air Transport Advisory Council as originally set up under Section 12 of the Civil Aviation Act, 1949. This is an important provision to which the House may well wish to have its attention drawn. It is the provision under which any person will be able to make a representation to the Board
relating to, or to facilities in connection with, air transport services by means of aircraft registered in the United Kingdom, being services required by this Act to be authorised by an air service licence, or with respect to the tariff or other charges in respect of any such service or facilities.
Provided that it is not a frivolous or vexatious representation, the Board will have to consider it, make a report to the Minister, and make recommendations. Clearly, it is a very wide power. I hope this will go some way towards satisfying the hon. Gentleman.
There is, I think, a very large measure of agreement on the Bill between the two sides of the House. As far as I judge the situation, there is no disagreement in principle on the primary objective of the Bill, namely, the establishment of the Air Transport Licensing Board in place of the present Air Transport Advisory Council. By a curious process, initiated, as the hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees said, by the Labour Government, the Council has developed into a de facto licensing authority acting in an informal way. As has been widely acknowledged on both sides of the House, it has carried out its duties with considerable success. However, neither its constitution nor its procedures are really suitable to sustain such a rôle indefinitely. In order to circumvent the legal monopoly of the airways corporations, independent companies were appointed as "associates" to the corporations for particular services. This was something which the Labour Government did and, as the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss) said, it involves a completely false relationship between the corporations and the independents.
The right hon. Gentleman described the present state of affairs as ridiculous, a fiction, even a lie. The present procedure necessitates also the exercise of a quasi-judicial function without public accountability or rights of appeal. I should have thought that it must be accepted on all sides that we should regularise the position by setting up this new independent Air Transport Licensing Board, with proper procedures, in a way which will safeguard both the corporations and the independents.
We appear to be equally agreed on not merely the desirability but, indeed, the absolute necessity of the provisions in the Bill about safety. In a sense, the Bill in itself is not directly concerned with considerations of safety; they will not fall within the terms of reference of the new Board. But there is no doubt, as several hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. P. Williams), have said, that the present regulations do give cause for concern. The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington) and the hon. Member for Feltham (Mr. Hunter) have very much in mind, quite rightly,

the accident at Southall, which drew public attention to the difficulties.
Hitherto, as an incidental preliminary to the approval of services by the Advisory Council, operators of scheduled services have been inspected by the Director of Aviation Safety, but this, of course, has not extended to non-scheduled flying. The provisions of the Air Navigation Order—which we propose to strengthen—were quite general in effect and enforcement was difficult and cumbersome. It is now intended, under a new Order to be made under Section 8 of the 1949 Act, to cover all commercial operators. It is, I think, generally agreed to be an essential provision. Of course, an air operator's certificate cannot prevent all accidents taking place. It will, however, ensure that facilities for air transport are offered to the public only by firms with adequate safety arrangements.
That is the measure of agreement between us, which is, I think, very substantial. Coming to the main objections of the Opposition, which were voiced both by the right hon. Member for Vauxhall and by the hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees, they are really two-fold. First, they say that the Bill is vague and imprecise so that none can tell what the consequences may be. Secondly, they say that the Bill is likely to have an effect seriously damaging to the corporations. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South pointed out, those are somewhat contradictory conclusions to arrive at.
I think the real answer to these and other criticisms and questions which have been raised concerning the activities of the new Board and their effect on the future pattern of aviation is that they ignore the main aim of the Bill. The main aim is to bring the law into line with reality, by abolishing the now quite fictional monopoly of the corporations and securing equality for both public and private enterprise before an independent Board.
Of course, as several hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South and my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. Farey-Jones) have said, the success of the new system must ultimately depend upon the strength, wisdom and independence of the members of the Board


themselves. My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster) wanted a representative Board, but as my right hon. Friend said, that is not at all what we have in mind. The right hon. Member for Vauxhall thought that the numbers proposed were excessive. The numbers are somewhat larger than in the case of the Air Transport Advisory Council because it is intended that the now Board should be able to sit, as and when necessary, in two divisions. I believe that that is an important provision to make.
The right hon. Member for Vauxhall was very much concerned that the Board could, apparently, take anything into account or ignore anything, and that the factors which it will be asked to bear in mind are imprecise. It ought to be remembered, as my right hon. Friend pointed out, that under existing legislation there was, perhaps, no need for any Bill at all. Section 13 of the Civil Aviation Act, 1949, provides for a licensing authority to be set up merely by Order in Council. We have gone much further than was proposed in Socialist legislation.
It is fair also to make the point that the right hon. Member for Vauxhall, among many distinguished offices he has held, was himself Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and must appreciate the great similarity there is between the procedures envisaged under this Bill and those provided for by Section 72 of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, another piece of Labour legislation, governing the grant of bus licences. It is there provided that, in deciding whether to issue a road licence, the commissioner is to have regard to many matters which are similar to those in Clause 2 of the Bill—the suitability of the routes, the extent to which they are adequately served, the extent to which the service is necessary in the public interest, the needs of the area as a whole, the possibility of unremunerative services, and so forth. I should not have thought that the operation of that system had in any way prejudiced the position of the British Transport Commission. That body may have other troubles, but they do not stem from the operation of the licensing system. Indeed, it is fair to say that there has been very little criticism of the procedure proposed under the Bill. This, I think,

is because it is probably recognised that what is proposed follows fairly closely the procedure which has already been tried and tested satisfactorily in connection with bus licences.
My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East raised the point that it was not, perhaps, appropriate for the Minister to hear appeals. As my right hon. Friend pointed out, the matters with which the Board will be concerned are questions of opinion or policy and not merely of interpretation of law or of fact, as in the case of the air safety certificate. Parliament would wish that in the last resort the Minister should be the accountable authority.
It is the same kind of reasoning that led Parliament to provide for the Minister of Transport to hear appeals from decisions of traffic commissioners on bus licence applications. Incidentally, that whole procedure has been recently considered by two Committees. It was considered by the Thesiger Committee on the Licensing of Road Passenger Services, which was appointed in 1952. That Committee recommended against any change in the appeal procedure. The Franks Committee considered that Report and said that they had received no evidence which led it to differ from that conclusion.
The list of considerations set out in Clause 2, which is like that set out in Section 72 of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, is by no means exhaustive. We should not attempt an exhaustive list. It does, however, indicate an intention to ensure a measure of protection to existing established operators, whether air corporations or independents. At the same time it allows sufficient flexibility to permit of constant new developments of the kind of which many hon. Members have today spoken and to provide reasonable scope for both the corporations and the independents to expand.
It is against that background that we have to consider the major charge that in some mysterious way an independent licensing authority, weighing all the evidence and sifting all the considerations, would damage the corporations. My right hon. Friend has made it clear that, with the agreement of both the corporations and the independents, we are making provision to ensure that the


Board gets off to a fair start concerning the carry over of existing traffic rights. There should be no difficulty with provisional transitional licences in ensuring this fair start.
In the case of the corporations, the position is simple. They will simply carry on as at present on the routes they now serve. When the independents are operating approved services, those approvals will continue for the existing period and for the present frequencies. There is a little more difficulty in the case of independent services which need no approval now but which will be controlled hereafter. We will therefore have to set a date reasonably far in advance before it becomes an offence to fly without a licence.
As my right hon. Friend said, in making these generally acceptable provisions for transitional licences, there is no question of perpetuating the present pattern. Nor is there any question of smashing it. I assure hon. Members opposite that the great public investment in the corporations will be protected. The hon. and gallant Member for Derby, North (Group Captain Wilcock) put the position clearly when he said that no independent wants to take the place of the corporations. As the hon. and gallant Member said in the little debate which took place between himself and his hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Marsh), demonstrating that there is no workers' solidarity on the other side of the House, there is a place for both the corporations and the independents.
At the same time, however, in answer to the hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees, there may be scope for parallel services. That, however, is a matter that the Board will have to determine in the first instance. There will certainly be no sudden change in the pattern of traffic. It is, however, a fact that the corporations' monopoly of almost every British domestic and international air route will not be automatically inviolate. All operators will have the opportunity of making their case to the Board.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South was quite right in emphasising that we should think of the corporations and the airline companies

as operators. There should be no thought of a battle between the corporations and the independents. This is not a great ideological issue. The independents may well try to seek a bigger share of an expanding traffic, but that does not necessarily mean a bigger percentage. It might be described as a growing share of growing cake.
That point was brought out in the speeches of my hon. Friends the Members for Gillingham (Mr. Burden), Watford and Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd) all of whom, together with the hon. and gallant Member for Derby, North, emphasised the enormous possibilities of traffic expansion. The hon. and gallant Member for Derby, North went out of his way to explain to his hon. Friends the distinction between the sort of jobs that the independents want to do and those that the corporations are carrying out. We must not take too narrow a view of this matter.
We can recognise quite properly that the independents have played a great part in opening up new routes and services. They have concentrated particularly on popularising flying among people who might never have flown. In the long run, that must be generally in the interests of British aviation and, indeed, of the corporations themselves. The independents have also made a notable contribution, not merely in pioneering new services, but in pioneering them, as my hon. Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Sir W. Wakefield) said, at reduced fares.
At the same time, one does not belittle the achievements of the corporations. The hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees referred, quite fairly, to the fact that in the last calendar year, British European Airways reported a profit and that B.O.A.C. also has had its successes. It is fair to point out that B.O.A.C.'s share of Atlantic traffic between New York and London has enormously increased since the low 1954 figure quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham. The corporation is now getting roughly 40 per cent. of the traffic. This is an achievement which should be put on record.
The right hon. Member for Vauxhall showed himself also a little concerned about the possibilities of unfair competition between the independents and the


corporations. One of the advantages of tightening up the safety regulations is that we shall ensure that there is no possibility of economising in that direction. It is also fair to say that there is no possibility of the independents undercutting the corporations in the way that the right hon. Member suggested by offering less favourable terms and conditions of service.
Clause 2 (2, a) of the Bill provides that the Board shall be satisfied of an applicant's ability to provide, among other things, satisfactory staffing arrangements, but that is not the whole story. The Bill leaves quite unaffected Section 15 of the Civil Aviation Act, 1949, which provides that the terms and conditions of employment offered by independents, unless they are regulated by another Act or by an agreement between the independents and the trade unions or in accordance with a national joint council agreement, must
comply with the following requirement, that is to say, that they shall not be less favourable than the terms and conditions observed by the Airways Corporations in the case of persons engaged in comparable work".
I turn now to the questions which arise on the terms of reference. The right hon. Member for Vauxhall was particularly anxious that it should be mandatory upon the Board to refuse any application that was held to result in wasteful duplication or material diversion of any kind. I cannot feel that that is a fair way of ensuring equality before the law. I should have thought that these matters should be left to the Board to take account of together with other aspects of public interest, and to balance fairly.
The right hon. Gentleman also drew attention to an apparent discrepancy as regards tariffs. Clause 2 (5) provides for the fixing of fares whereas paragraph (c) of subsection (2) of Clause 2 only provides that the Board shall have regard to the tariff in force in respect of a similar service. In other words, it would be proper for the Board to have regard to the fact that on a certain route there was only a first-class service and that therefore there was a public need for an economy or some other lower fare.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle questioned the necessity to have regard to the need for a proposed service and said he would like that to be eliminated. It should be understood that, as

drafted, the Clause does not require the applicant to prove a need, so it does not put him at a disadvantage. If there is a need it is an argument in his favour.

Mr. Strauss: This is not a point of controversy but it is of some importance, so would the Minister say more about the question of fares because it is not clear at the moment? The Board must take account of the tariff of any similar service when an application is before it, but the Minister fixes what the fare shall be for all services abroad. If an applicant states that an ordinary service is being run by B.O.A.C. at a certain fare and that he will run a similar service at a lower fare, is it for the Board or the Minister to decide what the fare shall be?

Mr. Rippon: The Board does not fix the fare so it will not argue about precise details. Clearly, however, in the circumstances to which I referred that is a relevant factor for the Board to consider. That is as far as one can reasonably go at this stage.
The other matter under the terms of reference which has caused some discussion arises under paragraph (g) of Clause 2 (2), namely, the observations made to the Board by the Minister. It is accepted that there may be matters relating to international negotiations on which it will not be wise or possible to publish the Minister's observations. I can say, however, that where the observations are of a general character, for example on fares, it is our intention that these shall be published so that applicants may know where they stand and so that the House may question the Minister about them. There is one further point to which the hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees referred, namely, the annual report and statistics. I can undertake that we will consider this point.
In all the circumstances I think we have had a valuable debate which has ranged over many points arising under the Bill and I have tried to deal with as many as I could. I can safely commend to the House the broad principles of the Bill, although I assure all hon. Members that we will take full account of all that has been said before we reach the Committee stage. If either the corporations or the independent operators had felt that in every particular the Bill was welcome to them, that would have


been a very worrying circumstance. Indeed, the hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees seemed to be expecting the independent operators to complain about a number of matters. The fact that this has happened is a good thing.
The purpose of the Bill is to secure a full share of opportunity for both the

corporations and the independent operators through a procedure which we trust will be in every way open, fair and impartial.

Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 233, Noes 175.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.


Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 38 (Committal of Bills).

Orders of the Day — REQUISITIONED HOUSES BILL

Order for consideration, not amended (in the Standing Committee), read.

Bill recommitted to a Committee of the whole House in respect of the Amendment to Clause 2, page 2, line 20, standing on the Notice Paper in the name of Mr. Michael Stewart.—[Mr. MacColl.]

Bill immediately considered in Committee.

[Major Sir WILLIAM ANSTRUTHER-GRAY in the Chair]

Clause 2.—(RENTAL COMPENSATION AND EXCHEQUER CONTRIBUTIONS.)

8.35 p.m.

Mr. James MacColl: I beg to move, in page 2, line 20, to leave out "twenty-five" and insert "fifty".
This Amendment is the final point which we want to put to the Committee after a fairly thorough examination of the Bill in Standing Committee.
As hon. Members know, the Bill is designed to extend the period after 31st March in which it will be possible for local authorities which have requisitioned property to go on holding that property while they complete the operation of derequisitioning. The issue between us and the Government at this stage is not whether it is right to de-requisition or to continue the period in which derequisitioning can take place, but what subsidy should be paid by the Government to local authorities which have not completed their derequisitioning by 31st March.
Originally, requisitioning was undertaken by local authorities as agents for the Government and a 100 per cent. grant was given on the deficiency of the whole operation, that is to say, after the rent had been collected and out of the rent there had been paid the cost of maintaining and repairing the property and compensation to the owners of the property, any deficiency was met by the Government up to 100 per cent.
That continued until 1955 when the subsidy was reduced from 100 per cent. to 75 per cent., which was a reasonable figure because it represented more or


less the general proportion of central and local subsidies for housing operations under the Housing Acts.
I do not want to go into the question of why it has happened, but there are authorities which have not completed their derequisitioning and are carrying on in the same way as they were under the 1955 Act, and performing precisely the same kind of activities, and the Government are purporting here to fine them for having failed to complete their derequisitioning. Had they been able to complete their programme by 31st March they would have received 75 per cent. Under the Bill they will get 25 per cent.
We discussed this in Committee and suggested that there was a strong case for maintaining the same subsidy as had been given under the old Act. The Government resisted that and we were defeated. We are now coming half way to meet them and suggesting 50 per cent. instead of 75 per cent.
There are two main arguments against giving the subsidy of 50 per cent. The first argument which the Government have used is that it would not be keeping faith with those local authorities which will have completed the operation by the end of this month, and it would be unfair to them if authorities which have failed to complete are in the same financial position as they are.
One of the difficulties that the Government have in holding that argument with any conviction is that they also say that there is very little involved in this, that very few dwellings will be involved and that the actual charge will not be great. If it will not be great from the Government's point of view, the "good local authorities", the "good boys" who played the Government's game will not have much to complain about if their weaker brethren who have failed to achieve the same objective in the same time get the same grant. It is a specious argument any way. The Government are obviously trying to stir up a little local authority jealousy by saying that the local authorities which have completed the job will be livid if the others get a certain amount of money out of the Government.
That is not a sensible approach to the local authority outlook. Most local authorities would recognise the difficulties of their neighbours and would not

be motivated by such thoughts. They would not care two hoots whether the other authorities were getting 50 per cent. or 25 per cent. They would feel that any local authority which managed to get a grant out of the Government should be encouraged to do so. The Government's argument is not a good one.
The other argument is that those authorities which have not completed the operation by the end of the month are in some sense to blame for it, and therefore they ought to suffer financially for not having done it. That argument was put forward with great vigour and energy by the hon. Member for St. Marylebone (Sir W. Wakefield), and my impression was that he caused a good deal of embarrassment to the Government. Certainly the Parliamentary Secretary could not have used more honeyed words to the local authorities involved. He made no suggestion that this was in any sense a fine which was being levied on them because they failed to do the job.
There are many reasons why they may have failed to do the job. They may have had more property to deal with. In some cases they may have had landlords who were more difficult to persuade to accept licensees as tenants. The property may have been older and required more money to be spent on it to get it into a reasonable state before it could be used. There are all sorts of complications which explain why some local authorities have failed to keep up to the level of the others. Therefore, if the Government are not out to fine them for bad behaviour, there is no case for discrimination. If, as the Government tell us, there will be only a very small overlap—perhaps a matter of a few months, in most cases, involving very few dwellings—the sensible thing is to continue the financial arrangements negotiated with local authorities in 1955 until the whole operation is completed.
8.45 p.m.
The Amendment goes a little beyond that. In it we are saying, "All right, let us agree that there should be a small financial sanction to discourage them." That is not a very strong argument, but we will accept it as being something that the Government want. In that case, I suggest that the figure of 50 per cent. is a


much more reasonable approximation to what is required than is their very drastic reduction from 75 per cent. to 25 per cent.
In the Bill the Government have changed the rules to the disadvantage of local authorities. I am not quarrelling with them for changing the rules, but I would point out that they have increased the amount of compensation payable to the owners of property. The Committee approved that increase as being desirable, but it means that the loss on the property is liable to be greater. It means, therefore, that on the one hand the Government are increasing the loss likely to be incurred on requisitioned property and, on the other hand, are backing out of their responsibility for their own decision by reducing the percentage which they are prepared to pay on the deficiency in running this operation.
In those circumstances I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will accept the Amendment, which is a reasonable compromise. It goes some way to meet the Government's desire to have a slight financial discrimination against the dilatory authorities while, at the same time, it avoids inflicting financial hardship upon them.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Sir Keith Joseph): The hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) has moved his Amendment very persuasively, to the effect that, after 31st March, taxpayers should continue to pay, in respect of those dwellings which, by an order of my right hon. Friend, are still under requisition, a contribution not of 75 per cent., as now, but of 50 per cent. The hon. Member has been able to do this only by disposing far too easily of what I regard as the two main arguments in favour of a reduction to a rather lower figure.
As the hon. Member says, this provision will concern only a few local authorities. It will affect a body of local authorities who, for a few months, will not quite have disposed of their requisitioning problems—some because they started too late, some because they went too slowly, even though they made an early start, and some, perhaps, because of a political miscalculation. But we must remember that the vast majority of

local authorities—including many which had just as daunting a problem as that which faced those few who will not have finished the job—will have totally disposed of their requisitioned property by the end of March. They will have every right to resent the easy availability to those who, for one reason or another, did not manage to finish the job, of anything like the same amount of taxpayers' money as they themselves received.
The hon. Member says that he is humouring the Government by departing from his own principles so far as to agree to a reduction in the 75 per cent. grant received now. He comes down to 50 per cent. I still think that he underestimates the resentment which will be felt by local authorities who have made such great efforts to succeed in their task if so little difference were made for those few who, for one reason or another, have not been so successful.
We take the view that local authorities who do not finish the job have no right to expect anything. There were a number of warnings—this is the second argument which the hon. Gentleman failed to meet—that any authority which failed to finish derequisitioning by the end of March could not expect a contribution from the taxpayer. Far from holding the local authorities concerned to this prediction, we are, in fact, tempering the wind by conceding a 25 per cent. contribution from the taxpayer.
We believe that the level of 25 per cent. is just about the right compromise. It eases the shock for those very few local authorities for the short time still left, while maintaining faith with the vast bulk of local authorities who, often in the face of equally difficult problems, will have totally succeeded in their task. I very much hope, therefore, that this Amendment will not be pressed, and that the figure of 25 per cent. will remain in the Bill.

Mr. David Weitzman: I fail to understand the argument of the Parliamentary Secretary. He says that the local authorities concerned have no right to expect anything. Let me remind him that since 1955 the Minister has been warned repeatedly that, despite every effort which they might make, some local authorities would be unable


to complete their derequisitioning programme by 31st March this year. It was only belatedly that the Minister recognised the justice of that criticism.
I wish to recall to the Parliamentary Secretary the date when the legislation was brought forward and when an offer was made by the present Minister of Aviation, who was then in charge of the Measure, to extend the period for two years. He thought then that some period ought to be put forward. It seems to me absolutely monstrous to argue that these local authorities ought to expect nothing, but that the Government are kindly offering to them the small amount of 25 per cent.
I should like to hear the Minister state in plain language whether he regards this as a penal Clause. From what he has said it is nothing less than a penal Clause. In effect, the hon. Gentleman said that the authorities which completed their derequisitioning task by 31st March would be good boys and would have done their work, and, therefore, they would have the 50 per cent. The Parliamentary Secretary says that they will resent the payment of anything more than 25 per cent. to the others. What evidence is there that there will be such resentment? Why should there be? It may be that there are local authorities which will complete this work because the task was comparatively light. How do their difficulties compare with those, for example, of the Borough of Hackney and the Borough of Stoke Newington which have made every effort to complete their gigantic task?
Surely the Minister is wrong in saying that every authority which fails to complete its task by 31st March is at fault, because that is what he is saying. He proposes to punish them by limiting the amount of compensation to 25 per cent. There may have been one or two which failed. Perhaps one or two of the authorities have been dilatory in this matter. What about the others? Are they to suffer also? Does the argument apply to all? If one or two have been dilatory in some way, why punish the others?
If the Minister were to take cognisance of the facts which exist in certain constituencies—the Herculean efforts made by them, efforts to get landlords to accept statutory tenants—he would

know that they have striven to carry out their obligations though they have failed. They have not been able to complete derequisitioning by 31st March. The Minister says, "You have all been naughty boys and as a result we shall give you only 25 per cent." Surely it is simple justice to recognise the position.
The Amendment is a moderate one. The former Amendment which asked for 75 per cent. was a just one, but this is an attempt at compromise. The Minister should recognise that he has been at fault. He should recognise that the efforts of those borough councils to get something done should be rewarded to some extent. He ought not to punish them in this way. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to think again and to accept the Amendment.

Mr. Albert Evans: I was rather surprised at the words the Parliamentary Secretary used in replying to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl). The Parliamentary Secretary seems to have an unfortunate attitude towards local authorities. He said that those which have not completed derequisitioning had started too late, acted too slowly, or made a political miscalculation. Those which had succeeded in derequisitioning might be full of resentment if the Government were considerate towards those which had been unable to complete derequisitioning.
I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will not persist in this attitude towards local authorities. He holds an office in an important Ministry, a Ministry to which local authorities look for guidance and help. It would be unfortunate if he were to speak too freely on the lines on which he has spoken today, blaming local authorities for being too slow, too late, or making a political miscalculation and causing resentment. We take the view that the Minister should do all he can to help local authorities. As my hon. Friend said, the attitude of the Government seems to be that those which have not completed de-requisitioning by 31st March are responsible for some mismanagement and default in carrying out the task that the Government placed upon them. I take quite the opposite view.
I know, and I think that the Minister and the House know, that the incidence of the burden of requisitioning and de-requisitioning varies considerably from place to place. We must all admit that the amount of requisitioning in different local authority areas varied considerably because the amount of bombing varied considerably. Local authorities did not start with an even task and the same amount of work to do; they had different burdens to carry. It was to be expected, in those circumstances, that some would finish the work earlier than others. Now, through no fault of their own, those which have not completed derequisitioning are to be penalised by the Government because they failed to complete a task which it was not possible for them to complete in time.
9.0 p.m.
We submit that, on Second Reading, the Parliamentary Secretary failed to give due consideration to local authorities which had generally had a heavier burden than those which had managed to complete the derequisitioning programme. In view of the small amount of money involved, it would have been better for the relationship between the Ministry and local authorities if the Ministry had met us on this point and had raised the figure from 25 to 50 per cent. As my hon. Friend the Member for Widnes said, this is not an unreasonable request. Personally, I think that it should go further—to 75 per cent.
The Parliamentary Secretary has not met the argument or approached the local authorities with understanding. I ask him not to take the attitude towards local authorities that they will harbour resentment against other authorities. They will do nothing of the kind. I have had some experience of local government, and I suggest that it matters a great deal what attitude the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary adopt towards local authorities' efforts. If the Parliamentary Secretary cannot accept the Amendment, I ask him at least to bear in mind that it is not helpful if local councillors are accused by the Minister of not fulfilling their duties and of harbouring resentment against each other.

Mr. Michael Cliffe: I hope that the Government

will pay serious attention to the Amendment. It is quite unreasonable to suggest that a penalty should be imposed upon all those local authorities which have failed to return all requisitioned properties to their owners by 31st March, 1960.
I believe that the Minister is well aware that on more than one occasion the Metropolitan Standing Joint Committee was more than convinced that, with the best will in the world, it would be impossible to meet the Minister's requirements by 31st March, 1960. The Committee made numerous protests, and asked the Minister to reconsider his decision and to give more time in order to enable local authorities to complete these duties within the meaning of the Act. This was not done.
Most people who have any knowledge or experience of housing in London agree with me that local authorities have performed miracles. What has been achieved is beyond anything we dared to imagine in 1955. Local authorities were obliged to buy much property which was sub-standard, and they spent a lot of money in trying to make that property habitable in order to provide alternative accommodation where they were unable to effect any agreement about the requisitioned property.
If there has been any delay, some responsibility ought to be accepted by the Minister, because at the beginning very little or no encouragement was given to local authorities to purchase other properties in order to deal with their derequisitioning problems. It was only after he himself appreciated how far short most of them would fall that he finally gave some encouragement to local authorities to try to meet the position by purchasing other properties.
I represent a double-barrelled constituency. Both Shoreditch and Finsbury have complied with the situation, but at what a cost. About £180,000 has been paid for 240 properties, and at present money is being lost because the properties need so much in the way of repairs merely to maintain them in a habitable state.
These are the kind of things which most local authorities have had to do. To suggest that further burdens have to be carried by local authorities, which means that they have to be carried by


local rates, is not only unjust, but extremely unreasonable. The moving of the Amendment is reasonable, and I hope that the Government will see its justice and accept it.

Mrs. Joyce Butler: I had not intended to intervene, but I have been rather stung by the Minister's attitude on this very reasonable Amendment. Whatever he may say, clearly this is a penal provision. It is directed against local authorities—admittedly a very few of them—which have been up against most exceptional difficulties. Every one of the authorities concerned has had not only a requisitioned housing problem but also a variety of other housing problems.
The Minister knows that in Wood Green we are not affected by this problem. We have managed, and we hope that by 31st March we shall have cleared our requisitioned housing problem. At the same time, we are defaulting in other ways. For example, we have not cleared our "prefabs" from open space. Local authorities have very often had to weigh up one consideration against another. Some authorities which have had a requisitioned housing problem have had acute cases of overcrowding, ill-health, and so on, on their housing waiting lists which have had to take priority.
When the Minister comes to the House and talks as if he regards these local authorities as being offenders—technically they may be—he completely under-estimates the real difficulties in which they have been involved. Every one of these authorities has a housing problem the solving of which gives its officials and councillors a continuous headache. They are built-up areas. There is a shortage of suitable property to acquire to replace requisitioned property which is of low standard.
Every requisitioned property has to be verore a local authority decides to buy it. In Wood Green we visited every one. I have been in practically 200 properties, looking them over from top to bottom to ensure that they were suitable for the authority to acquire. Where they were not, alternative properties have had to be provided. There is a shortage of alternative accommodation. I do not think that the Minister is taking all these factors into consideration.
As representing one of the authorities which has cleared the problem, I assure the Minister that we in Wood Green and Tottenham—and, I am sure, other boroughs with similar responsibilities—would not view it with any disfavour if he would now be generous to authorities in difficulty, if he would accept the Amendment and give them 50 per cent., which does penalise them but not so much as he attempts to do.
I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to have second thoughts. The Bill gives an extension of time to these local authorities that are in difficulty. If he would now be a little more generous financially, he would not only help them but would help this very grave housing problem which, I think, he has underestimated.

Mr. MacColl: In part, I agree with the Parliamentary Secretary. The real difficulty, perhaps, into which some local authorities fell was that of making a political miscalculation. It is probably beyond all question that had we won the General Election, the local authorities know that they would have got fairer and more generous treatment than they have got from the present Government. But the steel speculators made a "packet" out of the success of the Government. They made a successful political calculation. Local authorities in the built-up industrial areas, and the ratepayers there, made a political miscalculation, because they knew on which side were the people who really cared for, understood and sympathised with their problems. That, of course, is why they have to pay this penalty. The Parliamentary Secretary has at last come clean, and, on that issue, I would press the Amendment.

Sir K. Joseph: This debate has really called for a repetition in brief of what I thought I had made abundantly clear on Second Reading. Derequisitioning has been a huge task. No one here deities that. As the hon. Member for Shoreditch and Finsbury (Mr. Cliffe) said, it has been a vast task for those concerned and, as the hon. Member for Wood Green (Mrs. Butler) has said, it has often had to be tackled simultaneously with tackling a number of other housing jobs.
I quite accept that, and I accept, as has been said tonight, that the burden


fell unevenly because the bombing fell unevenly. I accept that solving the problem was complicated by uneven distribution of other properties, and of sites, of unco-operative landlords, and that, altogether, derequisitioning has involved a vast campaign on the part of the local authorities concerned.
I recognised this, so generously, I thought, on Second Reading that the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) this evening described my words towards local authorities as "honeyed". I have uttered no word of blame. I have not spoken of offenders. The fact is, as hon. Members must recognise, that by the end of March 98½ per cent. of the dwellings ever requisitioned during or since the war will have been released and, in many cases, they will have been released by local authorities with problems just as great, difficulties just as baffling, and other housing tasks just as numerous as there will be among those few local authorities who may apply—

Mrs. E. M. Braddock: Name them.

Sir K. Joseph: I have the greatest admiration of the efforts made by all the local authorities concerned—

Mrs. Braddock: Name them.

Sir K. Joseph: There is Battersea, for instance, which has had a very large number of requisitioned houses but which, I believe, will have solved its whole problem by the end of March; in number, as large as any other borough, with just as much shortage of sites and lack of large houses for conversion as any other borough. However, it would be invidious, on this sort of occasion, to bandy relative merits.
No word of blame is being uttered from this Box, but the fact is, as the hon. Member for Widnes said, and as has been said by other hon. Members, some local authorities started late, some, after starting in time, did not exert the maximum vigour that others exerted—some, perhaps, made a political miscalculation. There is no word of blame from here, but the fact remains that any loss or injury to local authorities con-

cerned can only be the result of their own efforts and, therefore, they can have only themselves to blame, though it is not my job or that of anyone else to blame them.
9.15 p.m.
The hon. and learned Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman) asked why the majority of local authorities who will have finished the task in time should resent it in any way if much the same contribution towards the management deficit were to be continued after the final date. He should ask himself what, among other things, spurred these local authorities forward often against quite baffling difficulties—difficulties quite as arduous as those which met those few local authorities that may not have completed in time. All local authorities have been twice warned. The hon. and learned Gentleman asked where the warning was, and why they should have had reason to expect no contribution from the taxpayer after 31st March. The answer is in two circulars, one in 1957 and one in 1959, as well as in answers to Parliamentary Questions. In all these they were repeatedly warned that after 31st March there would be no contribution from the taxpayer.
I am sorry that I cannot, therefore, agree that justice to that vast majority who will have succeeded in time, often against odds quite as large as anywhere else in the country, would be done by continuing the taxpayers' contribution for the short time and for the relatively few dwellings involved at a level as high as 50 per cent. The contrast between the treatment of those who have succeeded and those who, without any attribution of blame, will not quite have succeeded will not be sufficient to do justice to those whose efforts have resulted in complete success.
I do not for a moment underestimate the difficulties that have had to be overcome. I repeat, there is no question of blame from this Box, but faith must be maintained with the vast majority of local authorities, and I still hope that this Amendment will not be pressed.

Question put, That "twenty-five" stand part of the Clause:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 182, Noes 121.

Division No. 47.]
AYES
[8.25 p.m.


Agnew, Sir Peter
George, J. C. (Pollok)
Marten, Neil


Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)
Glover, Sir Douglas
Mathew, Robert (Honiton)


Allason, James
Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)


Arbuthnot, John
Goodhew, Victor
Mawby, Ray


Ashton, Sir Hubert
Gower, Raymond
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.


Atkins, Humphrey
Grant, Rt. Hon. William (Woodside)
Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.


Barber, Anthony
Green, Alan
Mills, Stratton


Barlow, Sir John
Gresham Cooke, R.
Montgomery, Fergus


Batsford, Brian
Grimond, J.
Morgan, William


Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)
Grimston, Sir Robert
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles


Beamish, Col. Tufton
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Nabarro, Gerald


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Neave, Airey


Bell, Ronald (S. Bucks.)
Hare, Rt. Hon. John
Nicholls, Harmar


Berkeley, Humphry
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Noble, Michael


Bidgood, John C.
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Page, Graham


Biggs-Davison, John
Hay, John
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)


Bishop, F. P.
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Peel, John


Black, Sir Cyril
Hendry, Forbes
Percival, Ian


Bossom, Clive
Hicks Beach, Maj. W.
Peyton, John


Bourne-Arton, A.
Hiley, Joseph
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth


Box, Donald
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Pilkington, Capt. Richard


Boyle, Sir Edward
Hobson, John
Pitman, I. J.


Brewis, John
Hocking, Philip N.
Pitt, Miss Edith


Bromley-Davenport, Lt. -Col. W. H.
Holland, Philip
Pott, Percivall


Brooman-White, R.
Holt, Arthur
Powell, J. Enoch


Browne, Percy (Torrington)
Hopkins, Alan
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Bryan, Paul
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Patricia
Price, H. A. (Lewisham, W.)


Bullard, Denys
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Prior, J. M. L.


Bullus, Wing Commander Eric
Howard, Hon. G. R. (St. Ives)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho


Burden, F. A.
Hughes-Young, Michael
Profumo, Rt. Hon. John


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Hurd, Sir Anthony
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Carr, Compton (Barons Court)
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Ramsden, James


Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Iremonger, T. L.
Rawlinson, Peter


Channon, H. P. G.
Jackson, John
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin


Chataway, Christopher
James, David
Rees, Hugh


Chichester-Clark, R.
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Renton, David


Clark, William (Nottingham. S.)
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Ridley, Hon. Nicholas


Cleaver, Leonard
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Ridsdale, Julian


Cole, Norman
Joseph, Sir Keith
Rippon, Geoffrey


Collard, Richard
Kerans, Cdr. J. S.
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)


Cooke, Robert
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Robertson, Sir David


Cooper, A. E.
Kirk, Peter
Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Lambton, Viscount
Roots, William


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)


Cordle, John
Langford-Holt, J.
Russell, Ronald


Corfield, F. V.
Leburn, Gilmour
Sandys, Rt. Hon. Duncan


Costain, A. P.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. H.
Scott-Hopkins, James


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Seymour, Leslie


Critchley, Julian
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Shepherd, William


Crowder, F. P.
Lilley, F. J. P.
Simon, Sir Jocelyn


Cunningham, Knox
Linstead, Sir Hugh
Skeet, T. H. H.


Curran, Charles
Litchfield, Capt. John
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'rd &amp; Chiswick)


Deedes, W. F.
Loveys, Walter H.
Smithers, Peter


de Ferranti, Basil
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.
McAdden, Stephen
Speir, Rupert


Doughty, Charles
MacArthur, Ian
Stevens, Geoffrey


Duncan, Sir James
McLaren, Martin
Stodart, J. A.


Duthie, Sir William
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm


Eden, John
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Bute &amp; N. Ayrs.)
Storey, Sir Samuel


Elliott, R. W.
McLean, Neil (Inverness)
Studholme, Sir Henry


Emery, Peter
MacLeod, John (Ross &amp; Cromarty)
Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)


Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
McMaster, Stanley
Tapsell, Peter


Farey-Jones, F. W.
Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Fell, Anthony
Maginnis, John E.
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Finlay, Graeme
Maitland, Cdr. J. W.
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Thomas, Peter (Conway)


Gammans, Lady
Marlowe, Anthony
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Gardner, Edward
Marshall, Douglas
Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)




Tilney, John (Wavertree)
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Turner, Colin
Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)
Wise, Alfred


Tweedsmuir, Lady
Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


van Straubenzee, W. R.
Watts, James
Woodhouse, C. M.


Vane, W. M. F.
Webster, David
Woodnutt, Mark


Vaughan-Morgan, Sir John
Wells, John (Maidstone)
Woollam, John


Vickers, Miss Joan
Whitelaw, William
Worsley, Marcus


Vosper, Pt. Hon. Dennis
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)



Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:




Mr. Gibson-Watt and Mr. Sharples.




NOES


Ainsley, William
Hart, Mrs. Judith
Oram, A. E.


Albu, Austen
Hayman, F. H.
Oswald, Thomas


Awbery, Stan
Herbison, Miss Margaret
Owen, Will


Bacon, Miss Alice
Hill, J. (Midlothian)
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)


Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)
Hilton, A. V.
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Holman, Percy
Parkin, B. T. (Paddington, N.)


Bence, Cyril (Dunbartonshire, E.)
Houghton, Douglas
Paton, John


Benn, Hn. A. Wedgwood (Brist'l, S. E.)
Howell, Charles A.
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Benson, Sir George
Hoy, James H.
Peart, Frederick


Blackburn, F.
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Pentland, Norman


Blyton, William
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Plummer, Sir Leslie


Boardman, H.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Prentice, R. E.


Bowden, Herbert W. (Leics, S. W.)
Hunter, A. E.
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Boyden, James
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Proctor, W. T.


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Hynd, John (Attercliffe)
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry


Brockway, A. Fenner
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Rankin, John


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Janner, Barnett
Robens, Rt. Hon. Alfred


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Jeger, George
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)
Rogers, G. H. R. (Kensington, N.)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Ross, William


Carmichael, James
Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)
Short, Edward


Castle, Mrs. Barbara
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Skeffington, Arthur


Chapman, Donald
Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)


Chetwynd, George
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Small, William


Cliffe, Michael
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Collick, Percy
Kenyon, Clifford
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Spriggs, Leslie


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
King, Dr. Horace
Stones, William


Crosland, Anthony
Lawson, George
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Vauxhall)


Crossman, R. H. S.
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Summerskill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Edith


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Swain, Thomas


Darling, George
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Sylvester, George


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Lipton, Marcus
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Deer, George
Logan, David
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Loughlin, Charles
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)


Dempsey, James
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)


Diamond, John
MacColl, James
Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)


Dodds, Norman
McInnes, James
Timmons, John


Driberg, Tom
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Wainwright, Edwin


Ede, Rt. Hon. Chuter
McLeavy, Frank
Warbey, William


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)
Watkins, Tudor


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Weitzman, David


Evans, Albert
Mahon, Simon
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Finch, Harold
Manuel, A. C.
Wheeldon, W. E.


Fitch, Alan
Mapp, Charles
Whitlock, William


Fletcher, Eric
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Wilkins, W. A.


Foot, Dingle
Marsh, Richard
Willey, Frederick


Forman, J. C.
Mason, Roy
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Mayhew, Christopher
Williams, Rev. Ll. (Abertillery)


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Millan, Bruce
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


George, Lady Megan Lloyd
Mitchison, G. R.
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


Ginsburg, David
Monslow, Walter
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Moody, A. S.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Gourlay, Harry
Morris, John
Woof, Robert


Grey, Charles
Moyle, Arthur
Wyatt, Woodrow


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Mulley, Frederick
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)



Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Oliver, G. H.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:




Mr. Probert and Mr. Redhead.

Division No. 48.]
AYES
[9.17 p.m.


Agnew, Sir Peter
Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Partridge, E.


Allason, James
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Peel, John


Ashton, Sir Hubert
Hay, John
Percival, Ian


Balniel, Lord
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Pilkington, Capt. Richard


Barber, Anthony
Hendry, Forbes
Pitman, I. J.


Batsford, Brian
Hicks Beach, Maj. W.
Pitt, Miss Edith


Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)
Hiley, Joseph
Pott, Percivall


Beamish, Col. Tufton
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Powell, J. Enoch


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Hobson, John
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Bell, Ronald (S. Bucks.)
Hocking, Philip N.
Prior, J. M. L.


Berkeley, Humphry
Holland, Philip
Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho


Bidgood, John C.
Holt, Arthur
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Biggs-Davison, John
Hopkins, Alan
Ramsden, James


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin


Bishop, F. P.
Howard, Hon. G. R. (St. Ives)
Rees, Hugh


Black, Sir Cyril
Hughes-Young, Michael
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Bossom, Clive
Hurd, Sir Anthony
Renton, David


Bourne-Arton, A.
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Ridsdale, Julian


Box, Donald
Iremonger, T. L.
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)


Boyle, Sir Edward
Jackson, John
Robertson, Sir David


Brooman-White, R.
James, David
Roots, William


Bryan, Paul
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Russell, Ronald


Bullard, Denys
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Scott-Hopkins, James


Bullus, Wing Commander Eric
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Seymour, Leslie


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Joseph, Sir Keith
Shepherd, William


Carr, Compton (Barons Court)
Kerans, Cdr. J. S.
Simon, Sir Jocelyn


Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Skeet, T. H. H.


Chichester-Clark, R.
Kirk, Peter
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'rd &amp; Chiswick)


Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Lambton, Viscount
Smithers, Peter


Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Leburn, Gilmour
Speir, Rupert


Cleaver, Leonard
Legge-Bourke, Maj. H.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm


Collard, Richard
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Storey, Sir Samuel


Cooke, Robert
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Studholme, Sir Henry


Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Lilley, F. J. P.
Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col, J. K.
Litchfield, Capt. John
Tapsell, Peter


Cordle, John
Loveys, Walter H.
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Corfield, F. V.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
MacArthur, Ian
Thomas, Peter (Conway)


Critchley, Julian
McLaren, Martin
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Crowder, F. P.
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Curran, Charles
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Bute &amp; N. Ayrs.)
Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)


Deedes, W. F.
McLean, Neil (Inverness)
Turner, Colin


de Ferranti, Basil
McMaster, Stanley
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.
Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Duncan, Sir James
Maginnis, John E.
Vane, W. M. F.


Elliott, R. W.
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir John


Emery, Peter
Marshall, Douglas
Vickers, Miss Joan


Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Marten, Neil
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Farey-Jones, F. W.
Mathew, Robert (Honiton)
Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)


Fell, Anthony
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Watts, James


Finlay, Graeme
Mawby, Ray
Webster, David


Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Gammans, Lady
Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Gardner, Edward
Mills, Stratton
Wolrige Gordon, Patrick


George, J. C. (Pollok)
Montgomery, Fergus
Woodhouse, C. M.


Gibson-Watt, David
Morgan, William
Woodnutt, Mark


Glover, Sir Douglas
Motts-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Woollam, John


Gower, Raymond
Nabarro, Gerald
Worsley, Marcus


Grant, Rt. Hon. William (Woodside)
Nicholls, Harmar



Gresham Cooke, R.
Noble, Michael
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Grimond, J.
Page, Graham
Mr. Whitelaw and Mr. Sharples


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)





NOES


Ainsley, William
Cliffe, Michael
Forman, J. C.


Awbery, Stan
Collick, Percy
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)


Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Crosland, Anthony
George, Lady Megan Lloyd


Bence, Cyril (Dunbartonshire, E.)
Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.


Benn, Hn. A. Wedgwood (Brist'l, S. E.)
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Gourlay, Harry


Blackburn, F.
Deer, George
Grey, Charles


Blyton, William
de Freitas, Geoffrey
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)


Boardman, H.
Dempsey, James
Hamilton, William (West Fife)


Bowden, Herbert W. (Leics, S. W.)
Diamond, John
Hart, Mrs. Judith


Boyden, James
Dodds, Norman
Hayman, F. H.


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Ede, Rt. Hon. Chuter
Herbison, Miss Margaret


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Hill, J. (Midlothian)


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Evans, Albert
Hilton, A. V.


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Finch, Harold
Holman, Percy


Carmichael, James
Fitch, Alan
Hoy, James H.


Castle, Mrs. Barbara
Foot, Dingle
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)







Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Manuel, A. C.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Mapp, Charles
Spriggs, Leslie


Hunter, A. E.
Millan, Bruce
Stones, William


Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Mitchison, G. R.
Sylvester, George


Hynd, John (Attercliffe)
Morris, John
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Janner, Barnett
Oswald, Thomas
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)


Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)
Parker, John (Dagenham)
Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)


Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Paton, John
Timmons, John


Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)
Peart, Frederick
Wainwright, Edwin


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Pentland, Norman
Warbey, William


Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Prentice, R. E.
Watkins, Tudor


Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Weitzman, David


Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Probert, Arthur
Wheeldon, W. E.


King, Dr. Horace
Rankin, John
Whitlock, William


Lawson, George
Redhead, E. C.
Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.


Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Logan, David
Rogers, G. H. R. (Kensington, N.)
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Ross, William
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


MacColl, James
Short, Edward
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


McInnes, James
Skeffington, Arthur
Woof, Robert


McKay, John (Wallsend)
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)
Yates, Victor (Lady wood)


MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)
Small, William



MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:




Mr. Mahon and Mr. Howell.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, without Amendment: not amended (in the Standing Committee) considered; read the Third time and passed.

Orders of the Day — CIVIL AVIATION (LICENSING) [MONEY]

[Queen's Recommendation signified.]

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 84 (Money Committees).

[Major Sir WILLIAM ANSTRUTHER-GRAY in the Chair]

Resolved,
That, for the purpose of any Act of the present Session to provide for the licensing of certain flying, it is expedient to authorise—

(a) the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of—

(i) any expenditure incurred by the Minister of Aviation in consequence of the provisions of that Act;
(ii) any sums required to be so paid by any Order in Council extending any of the provisions of that Act with or without modifications and adaptations to any of the Channel Islands or to the Isle of Man;

(b) the payment into the Exchequer of any sums received by the Minister of Aviation under that Act.—[Mr. Rippon.]

Resolution to be reported.

Report to be received Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — HIGHLAND AND ISLANDS SHIPPING SERVICES BILL

Order for consideration, as amended (in the Standing Committee), read.

Bill recommitted to a Committee of the whole House in respect of the Amendments to Clause 1, page 1, lines 8, 9 and 15 and to the Title, line 1, standing on the Notice Paper in the name of Mr. Secretary Maclay.—[Mr. Leburn.]

Bill immediately considered in Committee.

[Sir GORDON TOUCHE in the Chair]

Clause 1.—(ASSISTANCE TO PERSONS PROVIDING SEA TRANSPORT SERVICES.)

9.28 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Gilmour Leburn): I beg to move in page 1, line 8, after "persons" to insert "(a)".
I think that it might be for the convenience of the Committee, Sir Gordon, if we could consider, at the same time, the Amendment in page 1, line 9, at the end to insert:
(b) who provide such services and are local authorities within the meaning of the Harbours, Piers and Ferries (Scotland) Act, 1937, or
(c) who propose to provide such services.
and also the Amendment in page 1, line 15, to leave out subsection (3), and the Amendment to the Title, line 1, to leave out "wholly or mainly."

The Chairman: I think that that would be convenient for the Committee.

Mr. Thomas Fraser: Would it be convenient also, Sir Gordon, if we were to take the Amendment to the Secretary of State's Amendment in page 1, line 9, at the same time?

The Chairman: When we have passed the first Amendment, in line 8, after "persons", to insert "(a)", we shall then come to the Amendment in line 9 and take then the Amendment to it standing in the name of the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) and his hon. Friends.

Mr. Leburn: In accepting an Opposition Amendment to Clause 1 (3), in Committee, I undertook to reconsider this subsection and, if necessary, put down an Amendment clarifying its intentions particularly in relation to local authorities. I explained later that any new Amendment would be designed to ensure that local authorities would not be cut out of the Bill. I have also borne in mind the point made by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) that there should be room for assistance to what he described as a holding company if it were desired to give assistance in that way.
9.30 p.m.
I have given effect to these undertakings by this series of Amendments, which propose the deletion of subsection (3) and the substitution of a revised subsection (1). The effect of the revised subsection is that three categories of


persons may be assisted under the Bill. The first category is
persons (a) who provide, and are wholly or mainly engaged in providing
sea transport services serving the Highlands and Islands. These words are already in the Clause and the only change is the addition of "(a)". This provision would also allow for assistance to be given to a company that would be responsible for providing services but would he doing so by making an arrangement with, perhaps, an operating company.
This would be the holding company arrangement that the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) had in mind. The holding company would be the principal and the operating company its agent. I am advised that a company which made arrangements of this kind could properly be regarded as providing services, just as a local authority provides houses although it does not necessarily build them.
The second class of person that may be assisted are those described in paragraph (b):
persons … who provide such services and are local authorities within the meaning of the Harbours, Piers and Ferries (Scotland) Act. 1937".
This clarifies the position of local authorities, first, by mentioning them specifically and, secondly, by making clear that they are persons who may be assisted.
Since paragraph (b) is not now qualified by the words
wholly or mainly engaged in providing",
any doubt as to the application of the provision to local authorities is removed. Perhaps I should explain that the reason for defining local authorities as I have done is because the local authorities as defined in the 1937 Act—that is, county councils and town councils—are the only local authorities which have power to acquire and operate ferries.
The third class is those described in paragraph (c):
persons … who propose to provide such services.
This enables assistance to be given to intending operators when help is necessary prior to the start of the service, for example, by means of a grant or loan towards the cost of a ship. With

these three Amendments in subsection (1), the existing subsection (3) now becomes unnecessary and can be dropped.
The last of the series of Amendments provides for the deletion of "wholly or mainly" from the Long Title. This is appropriate to the inclusion of local authorities as persons who may be assisted. Clearly, local authorities cannot be described as
wholly or mainly engaged in providing such services.
The inclusion, therefore, of these words in the Long Title would be an inaccurate description of the range of persons who may be assisted under the Bill. I hope that, with these explanations, hon. Members may feel disposed to accept the Amendment.

The Chairman: It might be for the convenience of the Committee to pass the first Amendment and then formally to propose the Minister's second Amendment, when the Amendment to it by the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) can be discussed.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed: In page 1, line 9, at end insert:
(b)who provide such services and are local authorities within the meaning of the Harbours, Piers and Ferries (Scotland) Act, 1937, or
(c)who propose to provide such services.—[Mr. Leburn.]

Mr. T. Fraser: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in line 2, after "1937", to insert:
(c) any district council which provides such services.
The Amendment proposed by the Joint Under-Secretary gives effect to his undertaking in Committee that he would make it abundantly clear in the Statute that local authorities could be assisted under the Bill. It was necessary to do more than make it abundantly clear. It was necessary, of course, to amend the Bill to make it possible at all for local authorities to be assisted under the Bill.
Under the Bill as drafted, however, the Joint Under-Secretary was at pains to tell us that "persons" in subsection (1) included local authorities. Now he states "local authorities" without any qualification. The assumption was that any local authority which provided a service ancillary to a sea transport service might qualify for assistance under


the Bill. I put it like that because we must never assume that anyone who provides such a service will always receive assistance. Each application must be considered on its merits.
Since the Joint Under-Secretary brought forward his Amendment he has shown to us that the local authorities he had in mind were those within the meaning of the Harbours, Piers and Ferries (Scotland) Act, 1937, and these are the local authorities which normally provide the services mentioned. The hon. Gentleman will not deny, however, that some of those authorities having powers under the 1937 Act have declined to exercise their powers and have delegated them to the district councils.
Has not Argyll County Council passed the whole responsibility for piers to the district councils? I well remember it doing this many years ago when there were many piers in Argyllshire which the county council was invited to take over and manage. The job of taking them all over was so great that the county council felt it could not undertake the task and as it did not want to incur the odium of selecting which piers it would take it gave the whole responsibility for piers to the district councils.
There are some people concerned with the well-being of district councils in Scotland who think that the Argyll County Council did this out of a desire to help the district councils in their work. In fact, it did this out of a desire to relieve itself of a responsibility, and the district councils were given the responsibility of managing those piers. Are not those the very piers that will be required for use by vessels that would qualify for assistance under the Bill?
It may be that at any time any of the other Highland county councils will delegate their powers under the 1937 Act to the district councils. If the demand for the provision of a local service arises, as is possible, it is equally possible that the county council, rather than spread the burden over the whole county, will allow the district council for the area to provide the service. In other words, it will delegate its responsibility under the 1937 Act to the district council.
If the district council can come in in that way, as it has already done, it

seems to those of us who have looked at the work undertaken by the district councils that if the Joint Under-Secretary gives effect to what he said during the discussion of the principle of the Bill in the Scottish Grand Committee about assisting local authorities as well as persons who are willing to provide such essential services in the Highlands, it will be necessary for him to accept our Amendment.
I have said enough to show that there is justification for bringing the district councils in as suggested. I realise that the district councils were not written into the 1937 Act, but then the district councils were written into very few Acts at that time. We have become increasingly aware of the need to fertilise local government in Scotland, to give it more power than was given in the 1930s, bearing in mind that district councils were born only in 1939 and had a very uneasy birth after the demise of the county councils. We are doing our best, we hope, to help our local government bodies in Scotland to do the work. We are anxious to encourage more people to take an interest in local government and there is, particularly in the Highlands and Islands, much to be said for giving some encouragement to the smallest of the local authorities, namely, the district councils.
It seems to be the position that some of the piers that may be used, or ought to be used, for an improved service at the present time, are, in fact, owned by the district councils. It also seems that others of these services which the county councils have power to provide under the 1937 Act—and in some cases are not providing at present—should be provided if we are to improve services in the Highlands and Islands. It seems to me likely that they would give these duties to the district councils.
I hope that the joint Under-Secretary of State will accept this Amendment and give the Secretary of State power to give to the district councils the job we believe they should do.

Mr. J. Grimond: If the district councils are to be encouraged to do the kind of thing which the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) envisages—with which I agree—then at some point the Government will have to look at their financial powers.


I am grateful to the Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Government Amendment which proposes to remove the words "wholly or mainly" from the Title of the Bill and ensures that the Bill covers holding companies and local authorities.
If I read that Amendment aright it does relax the bonds on the Secretary of State. I am glad to see that the Secretary of State is here—that that wild man has been let out of the Scottish Office. I see that he is escorted by the Lord Advocate on the one side and by the Joint Under-Secretary of State on the other.
As far as I understand it, the controversial words "wholly or mainly" will not apply to subsection (1, c)—that is to say, it will not apply to people who propose to provide such services in the future. The Secretary of State, under this Clause at any rate, would be enabled, if he were so minded and could escape from the Lord Advocate and the Joint Under-Secretary of State for an afternoon, to give assistance to a company which is not at present providing services but which proposed to provide them, even if that company was not "wholly or mainly" engaged in the area. That is how I read it.
I do not quite know what the effect of Clause 2 (2) is, but presumably "wholly or mainly" add something to the Amendment we have passed to Clause 1 (1, a). If they do add something to that, there is presumably some reason for leaving them out of subsection (1, c).
I welcome this Amendment which gives effect to many of the points made in Committee. I hope it means that there will be no question of holding companies and councils not being included in the Bill.

9.45 p.m.

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: I welcomed the undertaking given by the Minister in Committee. In addressing myself to these Amendments, I think that the point about district councils should be discussed a little further. I am not quite certain how many district councils would in practice be able to exercise these powers. I cannot see much argument against making it permissive for them to do so. A district council area like Bellshill, in Lanarkshire, has a population of perhaps 20,000. I am told the whole area has 60,000.
A district council in the Outer Hebrides might have a population of 2,000. Perhaps the biggest of them, Lewis, say, would have a population of 24,000 or thereabouts, but one could get down to islands like Uist and Eriskay with a few hundred. There is no comparison between one district council and another, between, say, Bellshill and a small island in the Outer Hebrides. Even if the populations are similar, a district council with a population of 20,000 in the heart of industrial Lanarkshire and a district council with a population of 20,000 in one of the Scottish Highlands, on the North-East or North-West, are completely different when it comes to rateable values and what they are able to contribute from their rates.
In a heavily industrialised area, there is any amount of highly rateable subjects and very considerable rating revenue, while in the other case, although the population might be the same, it would be scattered over a much wider area and there would be a very small revenue from a heavily derated area. To make comparisons on any fiat basis of population or area is very difficult.
On the other hand, there seems to be no argument against allowing district councils to operate these services provided that county councils are prepared to delegate the necessary power. I think that that must involve from the start delegating financial powers to district councils, and I know that that is a step which Highland local authorities at least are extremely unwilling to take. They are very jealous of their financial control, perhaps quite rightly so.
Another difficulty is to find district councils with the staff, or able to get the staff, to operate the services, particularly the ferries.
However, allowing for all that—and I think that I have fairly reasonably stated the difficulties, which we recognise, in case the Secretary of State intended to throw them out in one heap—I cannot see any argument against permitting district councils to operate the services if they are able and willing to do so. In practice, it will largely remain with the county councils to decide whether they are to delegate financial responsibility and power to the district councils from the county council centres.
Argyll is more generous than most other counties in that respect, but Ross and Cromarty has refused time after time to trust district councils. I do not think that that county council trusts district councils on the mainland let alone on the islands. I do not see Inverness County Council or Ross and Cromarty delegating financial responsibility to district councils. I wish they would do so more. That would give district councils a sense of participating in local democracy and in the life and administration of the areas for which they are responsible. That is highly important, and we all want to see that. Merely to offer the new opportunities when in practice everything would have to come from the county council would not take them very far, and the Secretary of State will have to be very forthcoming about the financial aspect of any change such as is proposed.
On the other hand, I do not see why he should not be so forthcoming. If a district council is permitted to provide these services, there is no reason why, as from the passing of the Bill, it should not be able to go direct to the Secretary of State, instead of having to worry about the county council, to ask whether it can qualify to receive a grant or loan.
Is there any reason why we should not encourage local authorities, county councils, or the authorities defined under the 1937 Act, private firms and various other people to come along? Is there any reason why we should not also allow the district councils to ask the Secretary of State for Scotland for a grant or a loan?
If the Amendment were accepted they would not have to go through the county council. They would be enabled to go direct to the Secretary of State for Scotland in the same way as any other person defined in the Bill. I do not see any argument against giving them this power.
I support the Amendment and I hope that it will be accepted.

Mr. Forbes Hendry: I am impressed by the arguments put forward by hon. Gentlemen opposite for the inclusion of district councils because I regard these bodies as potentially important, especially in the North of Scotland. The importance of these bodies is not appreciated in the South,

where a county council can act as an executive local authority. In the vast areas of the North, one finds decent men who have little or no interest in what happens at the other end of the country and who are not prepared to go down and take part in the county council's discussions.
These bodies are frustrated because the 1929 Act—not the 1939 Act as the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) said—was intended to give these small bodies extensive executive powers in their own areas, but, for some reason which I do not understand, that was not done.
I know that in my constituency district councils have little or nothing to do. They are frustrated. Men of substance, good will, and ability who go on to the district councils find themselves without a job because the county councils will not allow them to do anything. I ask the Secretary of State for Scotland to consider very carefully whether the whole set-up of local government in Scotland should not be looked at to give some reasonable responsibility to district councils.
In this case, I do not think it is appropriate to write in district councils because, as the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) said, very considerable thought would need to be given to the financial powers of these bodies. To write them into the Bill would be nugatory, but the potential importance of these bodies is such that the Secretary of State for Scotland should give careful thought to giving them reasonable powers in the future.

Mr. A. C. Manuel: I hope that the Secretary of State for Scotland will consider the Amendment favourably. On this occasion it would be wrong to advance the argument that district councils throughout Scotland as a whole should get more powers, although I am in favour of that. The Secretary of State for Scotland would have a strong argument against accepting the Amendment if we advanced an argument along those lines tonight, because in the southern counties where there are large aggregations of populations among a geographically smaller county council area one would find that the county council as such would be the appropriate authority to do work of this kind.
That argument does not hold good in far flung areas of the crofter counties. I am thinking of Argyllshire. I hope that anyone who has any responsibility for Argyllshire will realise the importance of the Amendment in trying to achieve the objectives outlined in the Bill. It would be very difficult to carry out, as they ought to be carried out, the principles outlined in the Bill for ferry services and piers if the conduct of these businesses was carried out from the county council's main offices. But if it were operated in the district council areas, where the local people know of suitable persons to operate the ferry and do the necessary work in connection with the pier, it would be a success.
I hope that we are not going to rely upon the power of delegation possessed by county councils. They have been very loth to use that power. I have been amazed at the attitude of some county councilors, who are also members of district councils by virtue of their being county councilors, who have attended meetings of district councils and have listened to their problems without realising that those problems could easily be solved through some delegation of county council powers. If district councils were allowed to regard themselves as local authorities in their own right, there would be no financial difficulty because they would receive a grant from the Secretary of State, and if they did not have sufficient rating to augment it the amount of grant could be reconsidered in that light.
I understand that we are also dealing with the Amendment to leave out the words "wholly or mainly" from the Title. If they were being left out of Clause 1 (1) it would suit me much better. We should then be reaching the situation we argued for in Committee.
I hope that we shall have some consideration for the geographical areas providing these services. We should try to do something to make district councils feel that they are more than mere bodies to provide playing fields in the Highlands, and perhaps not even that in some of the very scattered communities. Very often there is no question even of street lighting, which is the other main responsibility they have, so that they are left with virtually nothing. I hope that we can use the Bill to put some life and

vigour into district councils which, in many areas, are dying for want of a real interest.

Sir David Robertson: There is considerable merit in the Amendment. It has been supported by almost every hon. Member who has spoken so far, including my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Hendry). I could well have made the same speech as he made. I realise that we have many very fine district councils. I had the honour of meeting the headquarters delegation to a conference held in Wick last summer, where I got the impression that they were all very frustrated. They are willing and anxious to do a local authority job.
They are the very beginning of democracy—the first stage in local government—yet we seem to keep them impoverished. They are subject to the orders of the county council. That may be desirable, but I should like to see them given greater freedom. No persons could be better equipped to do the necessary job in a county like Sutherland, which is similar to Argyll. Since, in that county, the county council devolve responsibility for piers on to the district councils, I do not see why the same should not be done in Sutherland and Caithness.
I do not think that we should be hindered from doing something which is right because of some Amendments which may have to be made to the Local Government Act, 1929. All kinds of changes have taken place in the world since then. It seems to me a simple matter. Take the piers—

It being Ten o'clock, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.

Committee report Progress.

Proceedings on the Highlands and Islands Shipping Services Bill exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[Mr Maclay.]

Committee to sit again forthwith.

Bill accordingly again considered in Committee.

Sir D. Robertson: I was referring to the willingness and ability of local councillors to do the job, as envisaged


by the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) and other hon. Members, and which, I think, they are well qualified to do. Apparently, under the 1925 Act the responsibility and the financial provisions are designed to go to the county councils and not to the local authorities. I was saying that if this is a right thing to do, I see no reason why the local authority regulations should not be altered if that be the will of the Committee.
I do not suppose that that can be done under the provisions of this Bill, although the thought occurs to me that as they would be entirely grants, for example, for piers—piers were specifically mentioned—for which none of these county councils could find the money for repairs, that might be dealt with under this Bill or under the Congested Districts (Scotland) Act. If it were a question of grants there would be no difficulty at all, because the total cost of restoring these piers to meet the needs of the Bill would be made. For that reason, I strongly urge my hon. Friend, who has piloted the Bill so well through its various stages, to tell us that he is favourable to the main changes being made, even if he cannot bring that matter within the ambit of this Bill.

Mr. James Dempsey: I support the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) who, I believe has been actuated by considerations of geography. Those of us who have been fortunate enough to travel in some parts of the West of Scotland, in the North and in the Islands on local authority business, know of the special problem which exists in that part of the country which does not obtain in the industrial belt. I recall that in one part in which I found myself it was necessary to travel by chartered aeroplane if one wished to attend a meeting of the county council. Therefore, I think, we should pay special regard to the geographical considerations.
We should do our utmost to avoid being drawn into controversy regarding delegated functions, because that could be a contentious subject in many parts of the country. It might even result in the explosion of a political bombshell in some corners of Scotland. It seems to

me that if a large county authority is willing to delegate functions of this kind voluntarily, we should make provision in the Bill for such an arrangement. We must be careful and remember that we are talking about district councils in remote parts of the country. We should avoid dealing with any situation which would result in a lack of uniformity, duplication of services and economic wastage, which could happen in the industrial parts were we to say that functions could be delegated from county councils from district councils. It is for that reason that I contend that there are special circumstances in this case which make the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton a practical proposition worthy of consideration.
Great stress has been laid on the question of finance. It should not be difficult to apply the financial provisions if the Secretary of State is willing to accept the Amendment. The county council could easily delegate that administration to the district council. It could delegate other particular services to the district for which it is financially responsible and for which it receives in return some contribution, either by way of Exchequer block grant, or by a directly approved grant. I hope that the Secretary of State will consider introducing a direct grant for services of this nature, which are essential to the country if modern transport facilities are to be maintained in an efficient fashion.
From the point of view of geography and co-operation with the county council, and the financial influences which are bound to arise, I cannot see any valid reason why the right hon. Gentleman should not accept the Amendment so ably moved by my hon. Friend.

Mr. Leburn: Perhaps I ought to have intervened a little earlier, but as one who has had a great interest in district councils and served on them for a great many years, I thought it would be interesting to hear all that had to be said on this subject.

Mr. E. G. Willis: We have not said it all.

Mr. Leburn: All that has been said meantime on this subject. Before I turn to the Amendment, I will reply to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland


(Mr. Grimond), who referred to paragraph (c) in regard to those who propose to provide services. That applies only to the question of the Secretary of State giving assistance. Once they start to provide the services, they will come under subsection (1, a) or (1, b), as the case may be. I think the hon. Member will understand from what I have said that it does not necessarily mean that the words "wholly or mainly" are cut out.
Turning to the question which the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) put when moving his Amendment, we all understand that the Amendment is directed to adding district councils to the local authorities to whom the Secretary of State may give assistance under the Bill. At present, local authorities whom the Secretary of State may assist are town councils and county councils. This is the effect of the definition by reference to the Harbours, Piers and Ferries (Scotland) Act, 1937, which defines local authorities in that way. The definition includes a combination, if necessary, of county councils and town councils. That Act confers on those authorities power, among other things, to acquire and operate ferries, and suitable ferries operated by a local authority could well be sea transport services under the Bill.
It has been the Government's intention that the Secretary of State should be able to assist local authorities to provide such services, but here we come to the rub: district councils do not have power to provide sea transport services serving the Highlands and Islands or, indeed, sea transport services of any kind. The Amendment therefore would be of no effect. If a local authority has no power, there is no point in providing that the Minister should be able to assist it.
The hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Malcolm MacMillan) is quite right that, strictly speaking, a district council is "a person" in respect of this Act. The other point which he made and which was raised by two other hon. Members concerns the question of delegating powers from local authorities to county councils. That could be done, because the county council would be the provider of the service. This is also true of the point which I made to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland about what he called the establishment of a

holding company. It could be the provider of the service, delegating to the district council as agents. Piers are not sea transport services but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir D. Robertson) said, district councils can be assisted in the provision of piers under the Congested Districts (Scotland) Act.
In view of the fact that district councils do not have powers to provide sea transport services, I ask the hon. Member for Hamilton not to press the Amendment. The question of giving district councils powers to provide these services goes beyond the scope of the Bill, which is to enable the Secretary of State to give assistance, not to bring in other bodies and to give them additional powers. I therefore very much hope that the hon. Member will not press the Amendment.

Mr. T. Fraser: The Joint Under-Secretary of State has tried to be helpful throughout the consideration of the Bill, but he has done himself less than justice in that speech. He impressed on the Committee the proposition that district councils have no power to provide sea transport services. Hon. Members agree that that is so. Would not he equally agree if I say that the county councils and town councils have not the power to provide sea transport services? Hon. Members will echo that, too.
The Joint Under-Secretary of State says that the provision of a ferry might be construed as a sea transport service, but I invite him to look back to what he said on Second Reading about the words in brackets in Clause 1 (2). I will read the subsection:
In the foregoing subsection 'sea transport services' means public transport services (including such services ancillary thereto as are necessary for the proper functioning thereof)…
That is, any services on the land which are ancillary to a sea transport service. It includes a bus service and it includes a road haulage service, as long as it is ancillary to the sea transport service. It includes all the harbour and pier facilities, which are all ancillary.
It is only because of this wide definition of sea transport services that the Joint Under-Secretary of State can bring in the local authorities at all.


What I said was that some of these services which are ancillary to sea transport services are at present provided by district councils in the Highlands and Islands. The powers have been delegated; they could not have performed the function otherwise. All that my Amendment mentions is district councils which provide services. Under the Amendment they would not get assistance if they were not providing the service.
10.15 p.m.
The Joint Under-Secretary did not deny that there are district councils providing these services at present. He said that they can obtain grants under the Congested Districts (Scotland) Act. That is not good enough. If we are willing to give the county council or the town council, as the case may be, financial assistance under the terms of the Bill when enacted for the provision of those land facilities ancillary to a sea transport service, exactly the same facilities should be provided for the district council. Why should the Government tell the district council that it must go to some other quarter for assistance to improve the facilities it provides? Is there any reason why the district council should not come to the same door as the county council or the town council for assistance for providing exactly the same service?
The Argyll County Council has delegated responsibility for piers to the district councils because it could not face up to the responsibilities in a county having so many piers. Does the Joint Under-Secretary say that when a district council asks for assistance to improve a pier so as to improve sea transport services recognised by the Bill, the district council will have to go to the county council which will then assume responsibility and make application to the Secretary of State? I do not think that the county council will. It has already washed its hands of the whole affair.
District councils have inadequate powers, but no one should assume that they have no rating powers at all. They have rating powers. District councils are allowed to rate up to 1s. in the £ of the rateable value. Under all the Statutes since 1929 by which they have been given statutory powers they are able to rate above that level. There are many district councils in Scotland providing

services costing up to about 3s. in the £. If this is a service which is much more likely to be provided by the authority on the spot than by an outside authority, I do not see why Parliament should not assist the authority on the spot.
I do not want to talk about the local authority serving the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for the Western Isles (Mr. Malcolm MacMillan). What are the county towns of the two counties—Inverness and Dingwall, on the east coast of Scotland serving those islands out in the Atlantic. If a local authority is to provide a service under the Bill in those islands in the Atlantic, which authority is it to be—the council in the area or the county council with its headquarters at Dingwall or Inverness? It will clearly not be the authority situated on the eastern seaboard on the mainland of Scotland. It will be the district council.
In any case, the Joint Under-Secretary has not replied to this proposition. The district councils in Argyllshire provide the service at present. If the hon. Gentleman is not willing to accept the district councils as proposed in the Amendment, he is saying that of all the local authorities providing these services in the Highlands and Islands the only ones that will be excluded from any benefit are the district councils in Argyllshire.
I see that the Parliamentary Private Secretary, the hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. Noble), has departed from the scene, I believe temporarily. He has been here for most of the evening, but as soon as the Joint Under-Secretary made his speech the Parliamentary Private Secretary departed. I do not know if it is another resignation. The district councils in his constituency are providing these services. Why? Will not the Under-Secretary accept the Amendment and enable the Secretary of State to accept an application for assistance from these district councils?

Mr. Leburn: On the various points put to me by the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) perhaps I might try to clear up first the one about powers of rating. At no time did I suggest that district councils did not have powers of rating.
I will turn now to the hon. Gentleman's question about the provision of certain facilities. The facilities which I think that he had particularly in mind were piers. If we are to widen the Bill to give assistance to everyone who in any way provides any kind of facility, it will become very wide indeed.
Quite frankly, I think that where the hon. Gentleman has gone slightly wrong in this is that he has linked his proposals to the words in subsection (2) of Clause 1:
… (including such services ancillary thereto as are necessary for the proper functioning thereof) …
It may partly have been my fault, in that many times in Committee I referred to these ancillaries as things like piers and harbours, but if the hon. Gentleman will read on in subsection (2) he will see that it says:
… provided in an undertaking which consists of, or includes to a substantial extent, the provision of public transport by sea.
Coming back from that, I suggest that the trouble is that the district councils do not have the powers to provide sea transport services and, therefore, as I said before, the Amendment would have no effect. It is not that I am unsympathetic towards the hon. Gentleman's remarks. It is just that the district councils do not have powers to provide sea transport services. If we link that to Clause 1 (2), the ancillaries to which the hon. Gentleman referred are qualified by the words:
… provided in an undertaking which consists of, or includes to a substantial extent, the provision of public transport by sea.
The hon. Gentleman may say, of course, that the time might come when the district councils should be allowed to provide such services as sea transport services, but I think that that is a matter for general policy at some later date. Should the district councils, at a later date, be given that power, the necessary enabling legislation would no doubt take into account the question of assistance being given by the Secretary of State. At present, however, they do not have that power.

Mr. T. Fraser: Then give it to them.

Mr. Leburn: I have tried to make it clear that it would be going quite beyond the scope of the Bill to use it as a means of giving district councils power to

operate sea services or shipping services. This is an enabling Bill, to enable the Secretary of State to give assistance. It is not a Bill to widen the power of district councils. I am sorry, but I must resist the Amendment.

Mr. T. Fraser: I regret very much that I have not the OFFICIAL REPORT of the Second Reading debate with me, because the hon. Gentleman is now contradicting what he then said. He did not admit then that the words:
… (including such services ancillary thereto as are necessary for the proper functioning thereof) …
were qualified or restricted by the words that follow:
… provided in an undertaking which consists of, or includes to a substantial extent, the provision of public transport by sea.
I suggest that the hon. Gentleman is now construing those words wrongly.
I wonder whether the Lord Advocate would look at this? I read subsection (2) as follows:
In the foregoing subsection 'sea transport services' means public transport services"—
and then, to make clear that the Government do not mean only transport services,
… (including such services ancillary thereto as are necessary for the proper functioning thereof).
On Second Reading, the Under-Secretary made clear that these words were put in to cover all those land services ancillary to sea transport—

Mr. Leburn: I agree with that, but going on to say:
… provided in an undertaking which consists of, or includes to a substantial extent, the provision of public transport by sea.

Mr. Fraser: May I read these words from the text? If we leave out the words in brackets which, we were led to believe, were put in to include those services that are not sea transport services but are ancillary services on land, the subsection would read:
… 'sea transport services' means public transport services"—
with this qualification—
provided in an undertaking which consists of, or includes to a substantial extent, the provision of public transport by sea.
That is what is meant by sea transport services. That does not refer to the ancillaries. There is not one hon. Member


who sat through the Second Reading debate or the Committee stage of the Bill who will not agree that we were clearly given the impression by the Joint Under-Secretary of State that these words in brackets meant the provision of services other than sea transport services, but services on land that were ancillary to the sea transport services.
What the Joint Under-Secretary is saying now is that he has brought in the local authorities—meaning the local authorities which provide a ferry service—to qualify for assistance under the Bill. That is not what we expected to emerge from the consideration of the Bill both in the Committee stage and now. What we had a right to expect was that the Under-Secretary would make clear that the local authorities would be entitled to provide services that would qualify for assistance under the Bill free from the restriction that they must be wholly or mainly engaged in running a sea transport service.
If the Under-Secretary sticks to his guns we are having much less than we had before. We are now being told that the local authorities that are being brought in by this Amendment are those which will provide a ferry service and nothing else, and all that we said about those services ashore that were ancillary to a sea transport service ought never

to have been said at all, because apparently they are no longer applicable. If I am wrong in that there is no reason why the Amendment should not be accepted.
I think the Under-Secretary has been badly advised and that when he looks at what he said during the Second Reading debate and at what he encouraged hon. Members to say both on Second Reading and during the Committee stage, he will see that he is regarding the wording of subsection (2) as being much more restricted than we were led to believe. I shall regret very much if he does not make a concession.
The hon. Gentleman seems to be refusing to tell us—I wonder whether he will yet say—whether a pier in the Orkneys and Shetlands is ancillary to a sea transport service. If it is, and if it is provided by a county council or by the Town Council of Lerwick, will the local authority be entitled to ask for some assistance for the land services in connection with the Northern Isles Shipping Service? Will the local authority be told that it does not come under the Bill, or will it be entitled to consideration? I do not ask whether it will get the grant, but if the Town Council of Lerwick is entitled to consideration, why should not a town council in Argyllshire which is responsible for a pier be equally entitled to consideration?

10.30 p.m.

Mr. Willis: The Joint Under-Secretary is surely going to answer the reasonable question that my hon. Friend has asked. He asked whether a town council that was responsible for a pier would be able to qualify for a grant under the Bill. We have had a long argument about this. It seems to rest on the interpretation of subsection (2), and I should have thought that we might have had the benefit of the wisdom and advice of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate. Surely he can advise us about what this really means. The argument really centres around whether the ancillary services have to be part of the sea services or can be separate, as I understand it. That is really the point, and a very simple one it should be for him.
I cannot understand why, when he is confronted with the perfectly reasonable proposition that the district councils should be given these powers, the Joint Under-Secretary says that this is not a Bill to give powers to local authorities or to district councils. It may not be a Bill to give powers to local authorities. Indeed, we are not asking for that. But what we do say is that we have discovered, during the course of our consideration of the Bill, that it would be an advantage if the Secretary of State availed himself of power to give these grants to district councils.
What difference would it make? We pass many Bills giving powers to local authorities of one kind and another. I am not certain that all such Bills set out to give powers to local authorities, but they certainly succeed in doing so, and it happens all the time. There is nothing very wrong with what we propose. The nation will not collapse as a result of a breach of a rather obscure constitutional practice. I have always thought that it was the proud boast of the British people that our Constitution was democratic and flexible, that it was able to meet any situation, and that it enabled us to tackle problems as they arose with despatch, expediency and efficiency.

Mr. William Ross: That is the Tory garden fête speech.

Mr. Willis: Yes, we hear a lot to that effect. In lecturing on this subject, as I have done in a great many spheres of life, I have always used this argument and said that we ought to be proud of our Constitution—we were not like the stupid Americans; we did not tie ourselves left, right and centre so that we found ourselves unable to act.
Here all we want to do is to say that if a district council has the initiative, if it has the men with the enterprise to go ahead and provide something which is recognised as necessary, it should be helped. Yet we are told that we cannot help. We recognise that we ought to help such a council and, if we did, we should be forwarding our purpose in the Highlands. But, apparently, some mysterious business of procedure stops us. Really, this is not good enough.
In all seriousness, I put it to the hon. Gentleman that the arguments advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) were very cogent arguments. I confess that I was not at first very enthusiastic about the Amendment, but, after listening to the arguments, I have become very enthusiastic about it. I have been persuaded by the cogency of my hon. Friend's arguments on the matter.
The Minister should be sufficiently flexibly minded to say, "I have made the case. I recognise that the hon. Member for Hamilton has made a number of good points. I will look at this matter. It must go to another place. There is plenty of opportunity to put in this Amendment, or to give it proper consideration." Hon. Members who have spoken on his own side have been in favour of it. If the hon. Gentleman cannot accept it "off the cuff," why cannot he say that he will consider it and introduce it in another place? The aim is a good one and should be encouraged.

Mr. Leburn: In reply to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis), I shall try to make the point a little more clearly. It must be my fault that I have failed to get it across. I can best do it by following the point raised by the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) concerning Lerwick. If that town council is providing the shipping services and qualifies for grant and the Secretary of State deals sympathetically with its application, it can be assisted in regard


to the ancillaries—that is, piers. It cannot, however, be assisted unless it is providing the shipping service. That applies not only to local authorities, but to companies and to persons who are providing or who propose to provide the services.
I have been trying to find the Second Reading quotation to which the hon. Member for Hamilton referred. Unfortunately, I cannot find it offhand, but I have found a passage by my right hon. Friend on Second Reading which might be helpful. My right hon. Friend said:
This is essentially a Bill to assist Highland shipping services and it is not, save within certain narrow limits, intended to provide for assistance to other forms of public transport. Thus, a person or firm, to qualify for assistance, must first provide what is substantially a sea service".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Grand Committee, 10th December, 1959; c. 9.]
As I see it, if the person or firm is providing the sea transport service, on to that we can link the ancillaries, but under the Bill we cannot link the ancillaries if the person or the local authority does not provide the shipping service.

Mr. Manuel: If the district council provided the ferry from one side of the sea loch to the other, would it qualify within the argument that the hon. Gentleman is now advancing? It would be providing the sea transport and the ancillaries, the pier at either side. Would it, therefore, qualify for grant?

Mr. Leburn: That is purely hypothetical, because the district council does not have power to run that ferry service. Such a case would not arise.

Mr. Manuel: But if it did?

Mr. Leburn: In answer to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East, if I felt that I had misled the Committee I would be prepared to look at the matter again, but I do not think that I have misled the Committee. I hope, however, that it is clearly understood from what I have now said that if the person, local authority or company provides the sea transport, it can qualify for assistance in getting help with ancillaries, including piers. Short of having misled the Committee, however—I was worried when the hon. Member for Hamilton suggested that I had done so—I do not feel inclined to accept the Amendment.

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: I do not quite follow the full logic of the Under-Secretary of State's argument. In reply to one of my questions a little earlier the hon. Gentleman said that a local authority, a district council, would qualify. He said that a district council which applied for assistance "as a person" might qualify for grant or loan. Is that correct, that it would qualify not as a district council but as a person?

Mr. Leburn: As I see it, a district council could apply as any other person could apply. Even if the Secretary of State dealt with the district council as a person, it has no powers, as I tried to emphasise to the Committee, to run that service.

Mr. MacMillan: May I ask the Minister to elaborate that point a little? If the district council came along as a person and asked for a loan and the Minister said, "You have no power as a district council to run a ferry service and, therefore, cannot be granted a loan," could that district council then come back and say, "Look, we have been in touch with our county council which has asked us to be its agent in running a service on its behalf."? In that case, would the district council qualify and could it get a grant or a loan?

Mr. Leburn: No, the district council would not qualify, but the county council would qualify and would be quite entitled to delegate its agency to the district council.

Mr. MacMillan: I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman for answering on the spot, but it is important to get this matter clear. As I understand it, in that case the district council, acting as the agent, would be able to run the service on behalf of the county council. In fact, it would be the operator of the service. Therefore, I am hopeful that as agent of a local authority under the Harbours, Piers and Ferries (Scotland) Act, 1937, its schemes qualify for aid under the usual practice, with a grant of up to 75 per cent. for the purpose of establishing a ferry service.
What, then, is the difficulty? In practice, we are to have the picture of a district council as the agent of the county council, acting as the operator of the county council's sea transport service. Yet the hon. Gentleman has resisted the


argument that the district council should be given the power to apply direct on its own behalf. In fact, it would involve only the same amount of money, even if it were accepted directly as the actual operator of the ferry. Why does the hon. Gentleman think that the county council would ask the district council to be its agent in the running of a ferry or ancillary service unless the county council thought that the district council was the most appropriate "person" to run it?
That is all that we are arguing about. In certain cases the district council is by far the most knowledgeable agency and by far the most intimately acquainted with local conditions. In some island areas, especially, the best body for the purpose of running a service of this kind might well be the district council.
If the district council is so acceptable to the county council that it is prepared to appoint it as its agent, why not give power direct to the district council to get on with the job? There is very little in the matter at all. I see no reason at all why the Minister should not accept the Amendment. I hope that he will accept it with the serious intention of having something done not only about the ferry service, but also about the ancillary services, the harbours, the piers and all the rest of it by those most directly concerned, the district councils.
The Joint Under-Secretary seems to think that it is sometimes better to ask a peer to help a pier, and I have no doubt that if the Bill is sent to another place someone would be found capable of moving a suitable Amendment covering our intention. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the Committee think that what we are asking for is reasonable and that if the Minister were to say "Yes" every hon. Member opposite would from force of habit alone echo him and say "Thank you" with us. We have already said it, so he would have the whole Committee with him.

10.45 p.m.

Mr. Leburn: Let us get this clear. I have explained at least twice before why we cannot bring in district councils. The reason is that this is a Bill to enable the Secretary of State to assist. It is not a Bill to give powers to district councils. I would be going wide of the scope of the Bill if I were to start accepting Amendments giving new powers and new

scopes to district councils. On that ground, I must resist the Amendment.

Mr. Grimond: I want to clear up one point, having just found the place. I want to refer to some of the remarks which the Under-Secretary has been drawn into making in the course of this controversy. I do not want him to answer this tonight, but if he will look at the OFFICIAL REPORT of our proceedings in Standing Committee he will see that he gave me an answer about the situation in the North Islands of Shetland. He said:
I confirm his point"—
that is, my point—
that if the ferries and the buses are integrated, though they do not necessarily need to be integrated with the shipping service, they qualify."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Standing Committee, 11th February, 1960; c. 82]
I do not think that he has gone back on that tonight, but it is very important that he should not do so.
There have been moments tonight when the hon. Gentleman has been inclined to say that those subsidiary services must be subsidiary to what one might call a full shipping service. However, in the North Islands of Shetland the ferries are subsidiary to the bus services so that it may well be argued from what the hon. Gentleman said in Standing Committee that they would not qualify. I hope that there is no question about that. Perhaps in the cool of the morning the hon. Gentleman might like to look at that again and make sure that the case is as he explained it in Standing Committee.

Mr. T. Fraser: If, earlier in our proceedings on the Bill, the hon. Gentleman had made clear that the ancillary services were only those services which were run by the shipping companies and not the ancillary services provided by the local authority, the Bill would not have had such an easy passage through Standing Committee. We do not accept a position in which the Secretary of State takes power to give a grant to a private enterprise shipping company to maintain a pier or harbour because the company owns it, but not to give a grant to a local authority owning a pier or harbour and serving exactly the same shipping service. I should have thought that there were


hon. Members opposite who would not have accepted that position.
However, the Under-Secretary has made it clear that that is the position, so that if the company which operates the service takes over a pier or other land service ancillary to the shipping service, the private enterprise shipping company can apply for assistance from the public purse, but if a local authority provides exactly the same service to run for exactly the same shipping service the local authority has no right to apply. Does any hon. Member on either side of the Committee think that that is right? But that is what is now described to us by the hon. Gentleman as the purpose of the Secretary of State.
It is too late to table an Amendment now. We have always understood that whoever was responsible for running these ancillary services would be entitled to ask for assistance. They might not get it, but they would be entitled to ask for assistance. We believed that that was the proper interpretation to put on this provision. We thought that district councils would come in.
If the Joint Under-Secretary is correct in his interpretation, there is no point in including district councils, because very little will go to the county councils, or town councils, under the provisions of the Amendment with the limitation that the hon. Gentleman has said must be applied to subsection (2).
I ask the Secretary of State for Scotland to consider, between now and the time when the Bill will be considered in another place, such Amendments as will enable him to assist the person, whoever he may be, who provides the ancillary services in exactly the same way as he may assist the provision of an ancillary service when it is part of an undertaking run by the person who runs the sea transport services.
That is a reasonable request because we think that it is the ancillary services which should be supported and not just the company which, for the time being, happens to run the sea transport services and the actual shipping services. We think that district councils should be in along with the other authorities.
For those reasons, I cannot withdraw the Amendment.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. John Maclay): I have listened very carefully to what has been said. I am sure that there must be some misunderstanding about this. Many hypothetical situations have been discussed, but the simple fact is that if the local authority, whoever it is, is providing the shipping services it becomes eligible for assistance under the Bill for any ancillaries. If it is not providing them, there are other powers under which assistance can be considered, for example, those under the Congested District (Scotland) Act 1897. I cannot see what the confusion is about.
It was made clear in the quotation from my Second Reading speech what ancillaries meant in that context, and it has been developed in the discussions today. If the local authority is providing the shipping services, under the Bill it can come in for consideration in respect of the ancillaries of the kind described. If it is not, and there is need for some assistance, that can be considered under the Congested Districts Act.
I cannot see what the problem is, because we have covered all the points. If we have misled anybody we will look at this again between now and the time when it is considered in another place, and consider how we can put it right.
I have studied what went on in Committee, and I have tried to follow closely what has been said tonight. In answer to the hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. Malcolm MacMillan), I agree with my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary that it would not be reasonable to use the Bill to deal with the general powers of district councils. There is room for argument and discussion on that subject. I know that this is an important point, but even the most ingenious Secretary of State for Scotland could not try to slip into a Highlands and Islands Shipping Services Bill a complete change in the powers of district councils.

Mr. Manuel: We have not asked for that.

Mr. Maclay: If district councils have powers delegated to them to run these services, they will be able to do so. That was one of the things that was wanted. I do not see how, with the best will in the world, we can go further to meet hon. Gentlemen.

Mr. T. Fraser: I cannot understand the Secretary of State. He says again that he cannot see the justification for accepting an Amendment to add to the powers of district councils. The Amendment does not add to those powers; it merely enables the Secretary of State to assist people providing services. Its words are:
Any district council which provides such services.
So the district council has to be providing the services before it is eligible to ask for a grant. We are merely asking him to take powers to assist people who are providing services.
What he says about congested districts legislation does not carry much weight, because there are severe limitations on the areas he can assist under that legislation. In any case, is the kind of assistance he would give a local authority providing one of those ancillary services the same as he would give to one providing a shipping service? We think it wrong that he should be asking Parliament for power to give subsidies to private enterprise to maintain piers while declining to give the same kind of subsidy to local authorities.
The right hon. Gentleman keeps saying, "If the local authority is providing a shipping service …"but he knows that local authorities do not do so. We are talking not about shipping services but about local authorities providing the ancillary land services which are essential to the operation of a shipping service. We disapprove of being told this so late in the day.

Mr. Maclay: indicated dissent.

Mr. Fraser: The Secretary of State can shake his head, but we went all through the Committee stage and had a lot of discussion on the matter, when we were told that the ancillary services included helicopters and rotodynes, and all sorts of other aircraft. We shook our heads in disbelief at that, but we were very willing to believe that piers and those other land services which are as essential to the running of a shipping service as a railway station is to a rail service would be included. We regarded those as ancillary services which might be supported under the Bill. We thought that the Bill meant what it said when it referred to persons providing these services benefiting.
We could understand the restriction applied to the words "wholly or mainly" in the Title, and in subsection (1), because local authorities providing ancillary services could not be wholly or mainly engaged in the provision of sea transport services. The right hon. Gentleman said that he would put that right by way of an Amendment on Report, and we thought that he had put it right. But his speech shows that he has not, and that this is just another Bill to provide a subsidy to private enterprise without making it available to public enterprise which is providing exactly the same service.

Amendment to the proposed Amendment negatived.

Proposed words there inserted.

Further Amendment made: In page 1, line 15, leave out subsection (3).—[Mr. Maclay.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Title

Amendment made: In line 1, leave out "wholly or mainly".—[Mr. Maclay.]

Bill reported, with Amendments: as amended (in the Standing Committee and on recommittal), considered.

Clause 2.—(ADVANCES AND CHARTER OF SHIPS.)

11.0 p.m.

Mr. Leburn: I beg to move, in page 2, line 9, to leave out from the beginning to "regular" in line 11 and to insert "provides".
During the Committee stage I undertook to reconsider the drafting of this subsection, and, in particular, to consider whether there was any dubiety about the meaning of the words
in the same undertaking or otherwise.
I now propose to simplify the subsection by deleting the group of words referred to in the Amendment. A number of hon. Members thought that the subsection as drafted was somewhat complicated. Its intention was, and remains, to exclude from the benefit of the Bill persons who operate regular transport services outwith the Highlands in addition to services serving the Highlands.
The reason for this has frequently been explained. To repeat what I said during the Committee stage discussions:
… we do not intend to assist services which are essentially services to places outside the


Highlands. This subsection ensures that the management and the accounting arrangements of any company which we assist shall be entirely self-contained."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Standing Committee, 16th February, 1960; c. 125.]
We do this in a clear-cut way. In effect, we say, "Form a separate company either for your Highland operations, or for your operations outside the Highlands." I do not think that this is asking too much. It is not a difficult or unreasonable requirement, and it has the advantage of being absolutely clear.
I hope that hon. Members will agree that the Amendment meets the wishes expressed in Committee.

Mr. T. Fraser: My hon. Friends and I do not like the way in which the Joint Under-Secretary has managed to amend subsection (2). I understand that Amendments which I had tabled will not be called, but I think I can say what I wish to say in the discussion on this Amendment, because all the words which appear in the Amendments I put down are also contained in the Government Amendment. I think that the words proposed to be taken out serve a useful purpose in the subsection as it is drafted. As amended, the subsection would read
The Secretary of State shall not under this section undertake to make, or make, any advance to, or enter into any contract with, any person of a description specified in the foregoing section who provides regular public transport services serving places outwith the Highlands and Islands otherwise than incidentally to the service of places within the Highlands and Islands.
I think that the hon. Gentleman was anxious to make clear in the Bill that he did not mind supporting a person who provided a service to the Highlands and Islands provided that it was done in a separate undertaking. Why not provide for the subsection to read:
… any person of a description specified in the foregoing section who provides in the same undertaking regular public transport services serving places outwith the Highlands and Islands"?
That is what the hon. Gentleman was at pains to tell us was the intention of the Secretary of State, and the purpose of the subsection. We think he has made the intention a little less clear by taking out so many words.
Before we pass from the Amendment, I wonder whether the Joint Under-Secretary or the Lord Advocate would consider

whether it would not be more clear if the words "in the same undertaking" were left in so that assistance could be given to the person who had separate undertakings.

Mr. Leburn: I have to confess that when I looked at the three Amendments in the name of the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) and his hon. Friends I found it difficult to come to a decision, because I saw little difference between the Government Amendment and the Opposition Amendments. There seemed to be a marginal advantage in the Government Amendment in that it made for clarity and simplicity.
I gladly say to the hon. Member that if he feels that the Bill will be improved by putting in these words I shall consider whether they might be included when the Bill goes to another place. I am being quite honest about this. I discussed the Amendments for a long time yesterday and today and there seemed to be an absolutely even balance. It was purely on the grounds of simplicity and clarity and the fact—I hope that I shall not be out of order in saying this—that the Amendments in the hon. Member's name, from the point of view of grammar, were a little difficult to understand and to link.
But I do not want to go into that. It was really on grounds of simplicity and clarity that, on balance—and it was a delicate balance—I decided that we should keep to the Government Amendment. If the hon. Member would like me to reconsider this, I shall be happy to do so and, if there is any advantage in adopting his words, or words like them, I shall so arrange.

Mr. Willis: As one who took part in the lengthy discussion in Committee, I should say that it centred around the words "or otherwise" and not "in the same undertaking" Because of that, we tabled our Amendments.
Subsection (2), as amended by the Government Amendment, would not make it clear that anyone already running a service outside the Highlands, by setting up a subsidiary company, could set up an organisation which would qualify for assistance under the Bill. I had to read the provision several times before I saw that that was what it included. If we put in the words we suggest it would be made crystal clear


that a separate undertaking can be set up to do what, in Committee, the Joint Under-Secretary said we should do. I hope that he will look at the matter again. So far as we can understand, our proposal would meet the position more clearly. I do not know about the grammatical error he suggested there was in our Amendment. I thought at first there was one, but, on reading it again, I do not think that there is.

Mr. T. Fraser: I am grateful for what the Joint Under-Secretary said. We should all be grateful to him for his undertaking that he will have a look at this between now and the Bill being considered in another place.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Willis: I beg to move, in page 2, line 22, at the end to insert:
(4) Where the Secretary of State proposes under this section to enter into a contract for the charter of ships to any person, he shall do so only in accordance with an undertaking a draft of which (including the terms and conditions upon which the undertaking is proposed to be made) has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of the Commons House thereof.
This Amendment raises the question about which we had discussions in Committee. It then became fairly clear that it would be possible for the Secretary of State to provide a hidden subsidy to a person running such a service by chartering the boat to the operator at a figure much below an economic charge. During our discussions, the hon. Gentleman said that the kind of figure the Government had in mind for chartering was about 10 per cent. of the cost. That could run into £30,000, £40,000 or £50,000. It is obvious that the Secretary of State could, under the terms of the Bill, charter the vessel to an operator for a figure very much below that—it might be £10,000 below that, it might even be £20,000 below it—and no one would know anything about it.
Subsection (3) says:
Where the Secretary of State proposes under this section to make to any person in any financial year any advances which, by itself or taken with any other advance made or to be made under this section to that person in hat financial year, exceeds in the aggregate thy- sum of ten thousand pounds …
it has to come before Parliament.
It is possible that the person operating the service could be provided with a

hidden subsidy much larger than £10,000 and for it not to come before the House of Commons at all. That should not be so. If there is to be a hidden subsidy to the operator, if there is to be this particular form of subsidy to the operator, the House of Commons should know something about it. It is because we felt that we should know something about it that we tabled the Amendment. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will look upon it with favour.

Mr. Leburn: I hope that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) will not press the Amendment. I understand clearly the point he made, but the trouble is that, taken as it stands, the Amendment would mean that if the Secretary of State proposed to charter even a motor boat to an operator of a small service he would have to lay the contract before Parliament and the House of Commons. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has that sort of case particularly in mind.
There is a more serious difficulty, which was referred to by my right hon. Friend during the debate on the Money Resolution. He then referred to the problems of seafaring. Conditions can very well arise in which it is necessary to find and charter a ship at very short notice to carry out essential services. Moreover, a charter might conceivably be for a very short time, perhaps for a month or even for a single voyage. In those circumstances, it might not be possible or appropriate to seek parliamentary approval.
I appreciate the proper desire of the hon. Gentleman to ensure that the House is able to exercise a proper control over public funds, and, in particular, his desire to see that my right hon. Friend's undertaking not to give a hidden subsidy by chartering at less than an economic fee is observed. I do not think that there is very much fear on this point. In practice, the chartering of any sizeable vessel is likely to be associated with an undertaking under Clause 2 (1, a), which would he of sufficient importance, namely, over £10,000, to come before the House. I agree, however, that it is not absolutely essential. But if that happened, the Amendment might mean a double debate first on the undertaking and then on the charter.
11.15 p.m.
In addition to any particular charter, large or small, I think that the hon. Member might remember that the matter can be raised in various ways. I think that it can be brought out to the House that there will be no hidden subsidy, and my right hon. Friend has, in fact, given an undertaking that that is not his intention. It could be brought out by Question and Answer on the Floor of the House. It could be raised on the Estimates, and it could be inquired into by the Public Accounts Committee. I think overall there are sufficient safeguards, and I hope, therefore, that the hon. Member will not press the Amendment.

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: Could it, in fact, be raised on the Floor of the House in the form of Questions to the Secretary of State? Our experience is that it is not permissible to ask questions about the operations, say, of MacBraynes, for which the Secretary of State has a certain responsibility.

Mr. Leburn: No doubt, that would be a matter for your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, or for the Table, but I should have thought that it would be proper to put down a Question to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State asking how many ships, and at what cost, he had chartered over a specific period.

Mr. Ross: Would not such an item be shown in the Estimates, under appropriations in aid? Are there not limitations on Members discussing what are contained therein?

Mr. T. Fraser: I should have thought that Members of Parliament found it exceedingly difficult, under normal procedure, to get any information whatsoever about these charter arrangements. We would surely be met at once with the proposition that we must not inquire into the business of private companies, or individuals, which we would undoubtedly be doing. I very much doubt if we would be able to get an answer to such questions.
I wonder whether the Under-Secretary envisages the circumstances arising that would give any substance to that part of his opposition to this Amendment, when he said that ships might be put out on charter for a month or even

for a single voyage. Does the Secretary of State envisage acquiring a large number of vessels that he will hold in readiness for the purpose of letting out on charter to individuals who might want them for special purposes, or is he concerned with the regular essential services to the Highlands and Islands? I thought that he was concerned with the essential shipping services to the Highlands and Islands.
I had understood that this Bill was required because the vessels running to the Orkneys and to Shetland were in need of replacement and that there was reason to believe that they would not be replaced by the present or any other private company, so that the Secretary of State needed the powers given to him in the Bill to enable him to let them out on charter to the company running that service.
If that is so, the vessels will surely be let out on charter for a rather long period, and it would be quite exceptional for the Secretary of State to have a little motor boat that he would let out on charter. We do not imagine that he is going in for paddle-boats at whatever holiday resorts there may be in the Highlands in order to extend the tourist attractions of the area. We do not quite visualise notices stating "Two shillings an hour" for little boats made available by the Secretary of State. We do not think that is the kind of ship that he is going to acquire by charter. Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us in what circumstances he envisages that he will be the owner of ships that he will be letting out to persons for a single voyage?

Mr. Maclay: I hope that I can give a quick, simple and clear answer this time to that particular point. I have had a case where, if we had had these powers, we might have solved more quickly a very awkward problem. A small boat broke down, leaving an island in a difficult position. A quick way of acting under these powers would have been to charter another motor boat and recharter it out to the people operating the service, which might in this case have been a local authority.
Things happen very fast at sea. Ships that look good for a long time sometimes break down, and one has to take quick action. There may not be


another ship available, and it may be necessary to charter a ship and recharter it out.

Mr. T. Fraser: It is an odd situation, that after all that is said about red tape and bureaucracy on the other side of the House we now have a position in which shipowner A, a private owner, has a ship that breaks down, and owner B has a ship that may be able to fill the gap, so the Secretary of State and the bureaucrats come into the picture and charter it in and out again to owner B to provide the service. I am touched by this high tribute now being paid to bureaucracy.

Mr. Maclay: This may not be relevant, but it is a nice point. I would like to arrange for the hon. Gentleman to see how the Baltic Exchange works, for there that kind of transaction is going on every day, dealing with ships all over the world being transferred with astonishing speed from one service to another by the methods I have described.

Amendment negatived.

11.23 p.m.

Mr. Maclay: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I know how extremely useful and valuable the Committee stage has been, and I hesitate, to enter into the discussion on this Bill at this stage because I know how very ably my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary has handled what is undoubtedly, although not a complex Bill in itself, a Bill which can give rise to the most highly complex, often hypothetical, and certainly extremely difficult questions.
In a way, that is a tribute to the Bill itself. We have had to devise a Bill which will give the Secretary of State powers to deal with situations which may be clear-cut and long-term, or short-term of the kind we have been discussing. It is not easy to draft a Bill which gives proper Parliamentary control and at the same time the powers needed effectively to deal with the kind of problem which we hope this Bill will deal with.
I am certain that everyone supports the main purpose of the Bill, and at this late hour I do not think hon. Members would wish me to go through

the details again. I will confine myself to saying that I hope that when the Bill becomes law we shall be able to do really valuable work of the kind which all of us who know these problems realise must be done.
That does not mean that everyone who asks for a shipping service is going to get one. That would be beyond belief and reason. It means that we can tackle some of the immediate problems which I myself have been working on extremely closely and—although I was not able to take part in the Committee—almost living with during my time as Secretary of State. This Bill is a great step forward, and I thoroughly recommend the House to give it a Third Reading.

11.25 p.m.

Mr. T. Fraser: In spite of the considerable displeasure which I expressed a little earlier during the Recommittal stage, I congratulate the Joint Under-Secretary of State on the skill with which he has handled the Bill throughout all its stages. He has been courteous and helpful throughout, and I think that he and the Secretary of State will agree that the Bill has been improved by the Amendments which have been made.
The Secretary of State said that he thought we would all approve the purposes of the Bill. Inasmuch as the Bill is designed to maintain and, we hope, improve the transport services available to the people who live and work in the remoter parts of our country, we, of course, support its purpose. But from this side of the House we have reason to support it from another point of view. We have for a very long time taken the view—a view which we have often expressed in debates in the House and in what we have written and said in the country—that the social and economic well-being of those who live and work in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland can be maintained and improved only by an extension of public enterprise.
It is no fault of the private entrepreneurs who have gone there and have failed, or who have declined to go there, that the great decay has continued for so long. We are convinced that it is only by an extension of public enterprise that this part of the country can be protected and the life of those who live there can be maintained and improved. When the


Secretary of State introduced his Bill, we felt like saying "I told you so," for it is a Bill designed to provide further support from public funds to private enterprise in order to maintain sea transport services in the North of Scotland. It was recognised by the right hon. Gentleman that, without further public enterprise in the way of subsidy, those services could not be carried on.
We were permitted a little chuckle, I think, when the Secretary of State, by his Bill, showed that he was not satisfied that even a subsidy to private enterprise would by itself be enough to maintain the services. He found that it was necessary for him to acquire vessels, to nationalise or take into State ownership the vessels which were to be used in those services. We congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on having seen the light so shortly after the General Election.

Mr. Manuel: And after his election speeches.

Mr. Fraser: After his own election speeches and after a General Election which was fought in Scotland by hon. Members opposite on this Tory election manifesto.

Mr. Maclay: Jolly good.

Mr. Fraser: "Jolly good" says the Secretary of State. There is the paragraph which reads:
We are utterly opposed to any extension of nationalisation by whatever means".

Mr. Manuel: Oh, dear.

Mr. Fraser: The first piece of legislation the right hon. Gentleman had drafted after he was returned to St. Andrew's House was a Bill in which he proposed an extension of nationalisation by giving himself power to acquire ships in order to make them available to the shipping companies operating transport services in the North of Scotland.
We discovered tonight that Clause 1 is not to be construed as widely as we had believed earlier. All members of the Committee upstairs believed that under the Bill the ancillary services could be supported by the Secretary of State. I ask the right hon. Gentleman, as the Bill leaves this House, to consider, when the Bill reaches another place,

whether he will not so seek to amend it as to take the shackles off the Secretary of State and allow him to assist the local authorities who provide the land services ancillary to a shipping service, in the same way as he can assist the shipping company which owns exactly the same land services which are ancillary to the shipping services which it provides.
I hope that the Bill will not only cause the existing transport services in the North of Scotland to be maintained. I hope that it will enable the Secretary of State to secure that they are improved and that the provisions to enable the right hon. Gentleman to give a subsidy to the private companies will mean that the services will be available for the people of the Highlands and Islands at fares and freight charges that are reasonable having regard to the size of their incomes.

11.31 p.m.

Sir D. Robertson: I appreciate the views held by the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) concerning public ownership and his genuine belief that public ownership must play a great part if we are to bring about the rehabilitation of the seven crofter counties, which are covered by the Bill. I take a different view to the hon. Member. For over ten years, I have been striving to have these things brought about by the old and tried methods of private enterprise, which are strongly supported on this side of the House.
The Bill is a form of public enterprise. It is the only thing that can be brought in at this time with any hope of success, due entirely to the depopulation of the area served and to the decay that has set in following the loss of the people. I am hopeful that it will bring about the shipping service which can, and must, play a great part in the revival of the Highlands and Islands. Once the main—in fact, the only—form of transportation, it has still an important part to play.
I must, however, warn the Government that unless industry is brought into our old towns—and it is just as easy to do that as it is to take it into the Northern Ireland towns, and much more so in most of the area—we shall not get the flow of produce outward steadily the year round that is essential to make any transport service pay. No one could challenge that.
The products that we produce in the North are seasonal products, but if we get an opportunity to earn our own living from Lerwick, Kirkwall, Wick, Thurso, Invergordon, Dingwall and Inverness, we are well capable of doing it. There is no light manufacturing industry that would be impossible for us to perform, particularly now, as we have abundant hydro-electric power in most of the area. I know that the Secretary of State has no direct responsibility for the location of industry—that lies with my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade—but I urge him to confer with the Board of Trade. The magic that was performed in the six counties of Northern Ireland can be performed in the seven Highland counties of Scotland if the Government have the will to do it.

11.34 p.m.

Mr. Grimond: I thank the Joint Under-Secretary of State for his courtesy during the Committee stage. I am critical of the Bill. I have expressed various criticisms, and I maintain them, in regard to certain parts of it, but I do not intend to go into them again tonight. I also have certain hopes that the Bill may enable us to get better and cheaper transport in my constituency and other parts of the Highlands.
My last word about the Bill is that fairly soon it will, presumably, pass through another place and become law. Then, I press upon the Secretary of State a point of which he is all too well aware but which cannot be put to him too often, that he must get on and get it put into effect as soon as he possibly can.

11.35 p.m.

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: It is not with any reluctance to see the Bill become an Act and put into operation, since it will convey some benefits, that I speak last in this debate. I want to say, first, that I very much appreciate the courtesy and the competence of the Joint Under-Secretary of State, who has conducted the proceedings on the Bill, and I am very grateful to him for the way in which he has met the various Amendments moved and the points and questions put to him. At the same time, I hope that in the operation of this Measure we shall see, perhaps, a little more speed than we have seen in the past in dealing with applications for development projects in the Highlands and

Islands. I am sure that that is the wish of everyone.
Many Measures go through this House with great expedition only, very often, to be afterwards forgotten or delayed in their operation. Some have so little effect that one feels they need not have been passed at all. The Acts are passed; then year after year we plead, argue and debate over every tiny little project in the Outer Isles or in the Orkneys. It is an endless task. I have myself exhausted six, seven or eight Secretaries of State in arguing for decades about unbelievably small projects in speeches in the House, by correspondence, by Questions and all the rest.
I hope that from now on we shall see a speeding up of the Scottish Office tempo. I hope, too, that the Secretary of State is going to take some initiative himself, that he will go to the local authorities and say, "Look, why do you not instal a ferry service? Here is a good idea to develop your tourist trade. You will get assistance under the Act." That would be a refreshing change.
Let the right hon. Gentleman go out and sell his ideas and show that the Scottish Office is really determined to put the Measure into early operation for all it is worth. If he would do that it would raise the prestige of the Scottish Office itself, of its excellent civil servants and of the Ministers and of this House. People would then believe that we meant business.
I agree with what the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir D. Robertson) said. Merely to put ships and ferries plying across the Minch and among the islands would be of little avail. We must see that there is sufficient economic development to justify this Measure. Otherwise, all that we shall be doing will be pumping public money in increasing amount into services from which the local people and the public will not derive the benefit which they ought to receive in an area in which there is great potential wealth that could be making a far greater contribution to the wealth of the nation as a whole.
Until we have development, industrial as well as agricultural, at a much greater rate we shall find it hard to justify, except on social grounds, the spending of the money which we are asking, and rightly asking, the nation to spend on the Highlands and Islands. This Bill is a further illustration of what has been


called the infinite capacity of private enterprise to expand provided an indefinite amount of public money is pumped into it.
The Bill could have been called simply the "Orkney and Shetland Bill". Under it, private enterprise failure in Orkney will only be catching up the earlier failure of private transport enterprise in the Western Isles. Until we received a subvention in the form of public money to sustain sea transport in the Hebrides that area's shipping services were near collapse. Orkney is now to be treated in the same way. I hope, but I have great doubts about seeing it happen, that ferry services will be improved under the Bill and that grants and loans will be made available for this purpose.
I have great doubts, too, about one other thing under the Bill. I may be right or wrong—and perhaps more should have been said about this—but I think that we are creating a very strange picture of one State-aided enterprise being subsidised to compete with another. That is a departure from the usual system and hon. Members should have very careful regard to accountability in respect of the expenditure of this public money. It is not even invested in the ordinary sense, for there will be no return from it as there is from public investment in some private projects. It is vitally important that we should have at least annual scrutiny and occasionally detailed scrutiny in the House of the operation of the Bill and this extraordinary departure from previous practice, now that we are to subsidise different instruments, different agencies, in competition with one another, with money from the same public purse.
Neverthless, we hope that it will work out well, for all my grave doubts about it. We can only hope that it will work and give our blessing to that which is best in the Bill, But, as the representative here of one of the major consumers of these services, the Western Isles, I hope that we will see something better than we have experienced from the operation of the MacBrayne's services since 1928.
Those hon. Members who look forward to magnificent, regular and reasonably cheap services in the Orkney and Shetland areas have a great deal of disappointment ahead if they are so naive

as to believe in those dreams. If these services are run in the way that the MacBrayne's services have been run all these years, there is great disappointment ahead.
That is why I ask the Secretary of State to take the initiative and not to wait until Tory-dominated local authorities in the Highlands and Islands at their own casual speed and tempo come to him from time to time and ask for a little grant for this sea transport or marine scheme, and a little loan for that, almost hoping that he will refuse in their fear that they will have to make their own rate contribution to the enterprise. If the right hon. Gentleman takes the initiative, he will give a boost to the prestige of his office, himself and Parliament.

11.42 p.m.

Mr. Leburn: I need reply to the debate only shortly. I take this opportunity to acknowledge the very kind remarks which the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) and one or two other hon. Members have made about me. I know that they showed me a great deal of indulgence on Second Reading and in Standing Committee, and I am very grateful to them. I thank all hon. Members on both sides of the House who have given me and the Government assistance in making this a better Bill after its passage through Committee.
One main criticism has run throughout all our discussions. It is that the Bill is possibly too restricted in its scope. I believe that the Bill covers all the people who are likely to provide services and likely to need assistance, from the main companies to the humble ferryman. Special provision has been made for the local authorities. If we need new blood, we can attract it and get what we want.
Having said that, the most important thing about the Bill is that it is to maintain and improve shipping services in the Highlands and Islands, and it is most important that it should be realised that it will help the people of the Highlands and Islands and contribute to their welfare and their livelihood. With those remarks, I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Orders of the Day — ROADS, WEMBLEY (TRAFFIC)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. E. Wakefield.]

11.44 p.m.

Mr. Ronald Russell: I ask the House now to pass from the somewhat complex problems of the Highlands and Islands of Scotland to what, I hope, is the simpler problem of the highways and byways of Wembley. I want to bring to my hon. Friend's attention the problem of heavy traffic along some of Wembley's narrow residential roads.
The first point deals with Sudbury Court Road, which is a narrow twisting road about two-fifths of a mile long, according to my speedometer, which runs from Watford Road to Sudbury Court Drive. It varies in width from 20 ft. to 24 ft. At one end, there is an appreciably steep hill with a bend in the road. It has a footpath along the whole of the north side, and a footpath of sorts along part of the south side, but there is a long gap in the middle without any footpath. The surface is bad. It was never constructed as a proper road, and it has no drainage. It is used as a short cut by traffic travelling between Wembley and Greenford.
There is an alternative route, which is from Watford Road, partly round the roundabout, and along Sudbury Court Drive. That is rather longer, being about seven-tenths of a mile. This route is far more suitable for heavy traffic than the short cut along Sudbury Court Road.
As my hon. Friends know, Sudbury Court Drive is no less than 120 feet wide. Between the two lines of buildings on either side it has a dual carriageway for most of its length and service roads as well. It was made originally as a link between Wembley and Greenford, but it does not get the full volume of traffic for which it was constructed because the bridge over the Midland Region railway between Carlton Avenue East and Carlton Avenue West has never been built.
It is easier for drivers going on this journey to use the route Watford Road-Sudbury Court Drive rather than Sudbury Court Road. It is easier still for drivers going from Greenford to Wembley, because to get into Sudbury

Court Road one has to take a right-hand turn out of Sudbury Court Drive across some traffic and when one gets to the other end of Sudbury Court Road one has to take another right turn into Watford Road. That involves crossing a lot of traffic and involves a long wait sometimes.
There have been complaints since 1951 about heavy traffic along this road. A traffic census was taken about that time, but nothing further was done. More recently there have been further complaints, and in 1958 a petition was got up by residents in the road and sent to my right hon. Friend's predecessor.
Because of that petition another census was taken on 22nd May, 1958, over three different periods of an hour during the day. As a result, it was found that between 8.30 a.m. and 9.30 a.m. 34 lorries over 3 tons in weight and 2 coaches passed along the road. Between 1.30 p.m. and 2.30 p.m. 30 lorries passed along the road, but no coaches. Between 5.30 p.m. and 6.30 p.m., 12 lorries passed along the road, but again no coaches.
That census was taken on a Thursday. It did not take into account the unusually heavy traffic that one finds when there are events of some sort or another at Wembley Stadium, particularly on four or five Saturdays in April, and certain other Wednesdays during other parts of the year when there are football matches.
I am not clear about the result of the census compared with the one taken some years before, because in a letter which the divisional road engineer wrote to the town clerk sometime in 1958 he said:
From this you will note that whilst there has been a substantial increase in the total volume of traffic the amount of heavy traffic has dropped appreciably.
But my hon. Friend, in a letter to me dated 27th January, 1960, said:
… the percentage of these vehicles to total traffic has decreased considerably during the same period, which suggests that more use is being made of Sudbury Court Drive.
There is all the difference in the world between saying that the amount of traffic has decreased and saying that the percentage of traffic has decreased, because there has been a considerable increase of traffic on the road over the past eight years, and it is quite possible


that although the percentage of heavy traffic using the road has decreased its volume has increased. That is a point upon which I am not clear as a result of these two letters, and I hope that my hon. Friend can clear it up.
The residents have asked for a weight restriction of three tons to be imposed on the road, under Section 10 of the London Transport Act, 1924. This was supported by the Wembley Borough Council, but it has been rejected by my right hon. Friend. The chief reason given for the rejection is that it is not justified, as little evidence exists that heavy vehicles are a danger. I understand that nobody has been involved in personal injury there since 1951, but there have been many near-accidents, and one case has occurred when a resident walking along the pavement has had her handbag hit by a passing car which was overtaking a lorry. Clearly the road is dangerous when that can happen. Another reason given for refusal is the difficulty of enforcement.
I wonder whether many drivers would deliberately ignore a restriction of that kind. Any driver who ignores a restriction is caught red-handed if a police officer happens to be in the road, and that driver can be stopped. The average lorry driver is a reasonable and amenable person, and if the restriction is brought home to him I feel sure he will observe it whether or not there is a police officer present. I hope that my hon. Friend will reconsider the matter to see whether the restriction can be imposed. There may be few roads where this sort of thing occurs, but this is one of them, and a restriction would be justified.
My right hon. Friend has asked Wembley Borough Council to improve the road at a cost of £34,000, which would include putting proper footpaths along both sides of the road and taking a little off the gardens of the houses, particularly in Sudbury Court Drive, at the end of the road, in order to make the whole road 24 feet wide. That would destroy its rural character, and it would not be justified in view of the fact that there is a much easier and safer alternative route.
If my right hon. Friend is adamant, the next best course is to make a "no right turn" restriction out of Sudbury

Court Drive into Sudbury Court Road. That would have the effect virtually of eliminating traffic in one direction without making it a one-way street. I understand that Wembley Borough Council intends eventually to extend the dual carriageway in Sudbury Court Drive to the end, which might have the effect of imposing a "no right turn" restriction. Perhaps my hon. Friend would clear up that point. If that is the case, why wait for that to be done? A "no right turn" restriction could be imposed now.
I pass from that to the Abbey Estate, in another part of my division, where the traffic has increased in volume rather than in weight, because that estate is used as a short cut from Ealing Road into the North Circular Road, and vice versa. It has caused a certain amount of alarm because there any many children on the estate, and the traffic does not observe the speed limit. This might be partly due to the trouble caused by the construction of an underpass at Hanger Lane. I hope it is and that when the underpass is finished the trouble will disappear. If not, again I wish to suggest that the question of one-way traffic be considered. Longley Avenue, one of the roads along which the traffic passes, is only about 20 to 22 feet wide. Were it made a one-way street there are several roads, including Abbey Avenue, parallel to it which might be used as a one-way street in the opposite direction. At one time there was a notice stuck on a lamp post, stating, "If you must use this road, please drive slowly". It had obviously been printed by a resident. I think that shows that something ought to be done to make the road safer, particularly for children.
Finally, I wish to refer to Oakington Avenue which is used by traffic travelling from Wembley Park Drive to Forty Lane and about which I have had a recent complaint. It is used mainly by traffic passing from the trading estate near Wembley Stadium in the direction of Greenford. This is a residential road, rather wider than any I have mentioned before, but nevertheless people who went to live there did not imagine that a time would come when heavy lorries would travel along that road. Obviously such traffic causes damage to property. There is no need for traffic to go along the road I have mentioned. It could travel up Bridge Road into Forty Lane or use


Brook Avenue, which is wider and has the Metropolitan Railway line on one side and houses on the other which are set well back.
I know that this is a problem which involves many other roads but it is one which we must consider. I am one who has for a long time been urging the Ministry to provide better roads.
These narrow residential roads were never meant to be used as through roads. It is one thing to have light vans and cars travelling along them, but it is quite another matter when they are used by heavy lorries of up to three tons. Apart from the danger, there is also the problem of noisy exhausts and doors. The houses are rocked and damage is caused to ceilings. Even if nothing can be done to stop the use of these roads by such vehicles, although this is not a matter for my hon. Friend, consideration should be given to reducing the assessments on the properties in that area. This question of heavy traffic presents a serious problem, and I hope that my hon. Friend may be able to give some reassurance to the people concerned.

11.58 p.m.

Wing Commander Eric Bullus: I have not so many roads in my constituency requiring attention as my hon. Friend the Member for Wembley, South (Mr. Russell). There is one, however, which has caused concern to my constituents whose complaints I can support from personal observation. I refer to Draycott Avenue, a residential road and a turning off Kenton Road. There is good residential property on both sides of the road. It is not a very wide road, but in the last few years it has become a busy thoroughfare for motorists and heavy traffic. There is extensive parking on both sides.
Like my hon. Friend I made representations to the Wembley Council and learned of its frustration in dealing with complaints about car parking in streets in the borough. The town clerk has sought the assistance of the Association of Municipal Corporations, of which I am a vice-president, and which is considering the problem of car parking generally.
Naturally, the police wish to keep the traffic moving along the main high roads and so, I am told, they do not discourage

parking in side streets, except near road junctions. The position in Draycott Avenue is aggravated by the presence of a transport café near the Kenton Road junction. This café is used by a number of drivers who park their heavy vehicles in Draycott Avenue, and there have been heated exchanges between some of these drivers and some of my constituents. Residents feel—and they have my sympathy—that the use of the road by heavy vehicles should be prohibited by the Minister of Transport. As my hon. Friend said, he could make an order under Section 10 of the London Traffic Act, 1924, but I understand that except where dangerous conditions exist the Minister is loth to make such an order.
A regulation imposing unilateral waiting in Draycott Avenue would help, and the borough council has decided to ask for such a regulation. Extra car parks would help, but I am told that the railway authorities have been most unco-operative, especially in the amount of rent they require. Perhaps the Minister could do something with the railway authorities.
In a short time, with the ever-increasing amount of traffic, the Minister will have to concern himself with two points, each at extremes of my constituency. One is at the Watford Bridge end of Kenton Road, and the other where the Kenton-Kingsbury Road enters the Edgware Road at the extreme end of my constituency. Traffic piles up at these points at peak times. I suggest that the Minister should be making plans for these traffic points now.

12.2 a.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. John Hay): My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wembley, North (Wing Commander Bullus) and my hon. Friend the Member for Wembley, South (Mr. Russell) have both referred to a problem with which we are becoming more and more familiar in the Ministry of Transport, the problem of traffic which is now coming on to quiet residential roads in suburban areas. As both my hon. Friends acknowledge, it is a consequence of the ever-increasing volume of traffic we have to face in this country today.
Twenty-five years ago, I suppose, some of these quiet streets in Wembley and


places like that were used only by ordinary domestic traffic which was comparatively light. Today there is not only an increase in domestic traffic, but increasing use of these roads by through traffic taking short cuts to avoid arterial road congestion. I think it important to keep the matter in true perspective to realise that since 1949 the total number of vehicles on our roads has doubled. The rate of increase has been about 500,000 a year in the last three years, and vehicle mileage went up by 32 per cent. and goods vehicle mileage by 24 per cent.
The examples give by my hon. Friend the Member for Wembley, South are by no means unique. We get a great many representations about this sort of problem from local authorities, from hon. Members and from the public. They usually complain of damage to the amenities which they have come to expect. They complain, quite rightly, of risks and traffic hazards created by this greater use of their roads, and local authorities frequently complain about damage which this heavy traffic does to roads never designed to carry it. They ask us either to impose weight restrictions, parking restrictions or prohibitions on the use of certain roads or one-way streets.
Our general policy is based on two main conceptions. I think reflection will make it clear that we need have no other ideas in our minds than these. The first is that the roads are there and must be used as roads. That is the purpose for which they were laid down. The second is that if we impose restrictions they will be useless unless they can be properly enforced.
On the first point, it is obvious that we cannot reserve a certain number of roads for certain types of traffic and allow other roads to be used by all traffic. There is a case sometimes—frequently we have to look at individual cases—where it can be said that, because of its structural defects, the road is not suitable for certain types of heavy traffic. However, broadly speaking, we have to accept that roads must be available for use by all types of traffic.
From that follows the fact that we must adopt some strict criteria when we are asked to impose restrictions. We can impose restrictions only in excep-

tional cases—first where there is a serious and persistent nuisance; secondly, where there is a real danger on road safety grounds; or, thirdly—this is the case on which I briefly touched—where the foundations of the road are, for example, inadequate to take the weight of the vehicles.
On enforcement, as the House knows, the police forces of this country are under strength by and large. Since the restrictions must be enforced by the police, that is a fact which we cannot ignore. When trying to enforce weight restrictions, and so on, there is an inevitable difficulty in distinguishing between traffic which is passing through the road to some other destination and traffic which is making a call on the road in question—namely, the purely domestic or delivery traffic. If we impose restrictions too readily on one road, it is frequently our experience that we simply transfer the problem to an adjacent road. We have to be rather tough in our policy on this.
It often happens that the problem is somewhat temporary in nature. My hon. Friend mentioned one case, to which I shall come in a few minutes, where increasing use of small residential roads is due to major road improvements which are taking place. But on the whole, this problem is due to the amount and volume of traffic on our roads and the inadequacy of our main roads, which we freely acknowledge and admit. The answer to the problem is that we have to press on with our policy of road improvement as fast as funds will permit.
I will come quickly to the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Wembley, South. Wembley is a typical area of the type where this problem arises. It is suburban, almost completely built up, and traversed by several main through routes. It is mainly residential in character, but it has a light industrial zone at Alperton and it lies near to other industrial areas at Acton, Willesden and Ealing. It is inevitable with an area of what I think the planners call "mixed development" that industrial traffic in residential parts of the district will increase.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wembley, South referred particularly to Sudbury Court Road. This is a typical short cut between Watford Road and


Greenford Road. It is not suitable for heavy traffic. A far better route is the one he described via Watford Road and Sudbury Court Drive. However, the difficulty about that route is that it involves the motorist or the lorry driver in an additional 500 yards, and there is a natural temptation to take the shorter route if that can be done.
The history of this is that in 1952 the Wembley Borough Council asked us to place a restriction on the road prohibiting its use to all but light vehicles. We turned that down in that year, on the advice of our Divisional Road Engineer and the police, after the traffic count to which my hon. Friend referred had been taken. The principal reason was that we were not satisfied in that year that there were a sufficient number of heavy vehicles using the road.
The matter then rested for a number of years, until in 1958, as a consequence of the petition to which my hon. Friend referred, he raised the question in the House. We then put the matter to the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee. The committee advised that we should reject the request of the council because, first—I hope that I can now make the figures clear—there was a substantial drop in the number of heavy vehicles using the road between 1952, when they were already insufficient to justify a restriction, and 1958 when the decision had to be taken.
Secondly, there was clear evidence that no heavy vehicles had been involved in accidents on the road since 1949. The Committee also advised that there would be difficult problems of enforcement similar to those which I have mentioned, and took the view that reconstruction and improvement of this road would be better. I believe the council is considering this point now. My right hon. Friend accepted the advice of the Committee and informed my hon. Friend in January last.
Tonight, my hon. Friend has mentioned two alternatives, as I understood him. One was that we should prohibit the right-hand turn from Sudbury Court Drive, and the other was that we might introduce a system of one-way working in Sudbury Court Road. On these two matters, our Divisional Road Engineer advised that they would be unsatisfactory. The right-hand turn and one-way

working would impose considerable inconvenience on those residents in that road possessing cars. It would almost certainly increase the volume of traffic that uses the road, and it would increase the speed, because when there is a one-way street there is a natural temptation for traffic to move faster since there is no stream of traffic coming in the other direction. That is one of the objects of the exercise—to speed up the flow of traffic.

Mr. Russell: I was not suggesting the creation of a one-way street. I said that the effect of a right-hand turn would be to make it mainly one-way.

Mr. Hay: I apologise if I misunderstood my hon. Friend. For that reason, the difficulty which would be caused to residents with cars in that road, we are advised that the prohibition of the right-hand turn would be impracticable.
With regard to the quadrilateral of roads—Longley Avenue, Carlyon Road. Abbey Avenue, and Queensbury Road—I will not go into great detail because the problem is similar and my hon. Friend has already mentioned it. But our advice is that a lot of the difficulty here is caused by the roadworks which are going on at the junction of Hanger Lane and Western Avenue where the underpass is being built. That should be open to traffic fairly soon, and after it is open we will look at this matter again to see if there has been a diminution of traffic using this estate.
As far as Oakington Avenue is concerned, this is not an altogether suitable road from the point of view of surface. A good deal could be done to improve the surface and get rid of some of the vibration that is experienced by residents in that road. I am advised—and I have a lot of technical data on this—that damage to ceilings is hardly ever, if at all, traceable directly to the use of a road outside by vehicles. I will show my hon. Friend the document from the Building Research Station after the debate.
May I come to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Wembley, North about Draycott Avenue. The position is that in 1955 the council proposed a unilateral waiting restriction, which again the Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee considered. They came to the conclusion that this should


not be adopted because if this were done the immediate effect would be that cars which parked in this comparatively quiet street would park in Kenton Road which is a through traffic route and a shopping area. Draycott Road is moreover a side road with a good deal of residential property having what is called in the language of my Department "vehicular accesses" to each house—what most people would describe as drive-ins. If we were to have unilateral waiting, it would mean that we should halve the amount of space available for parking, and that would mean constant usage of one side of the road, so that the drive-ins would be blocked. There would, therefore, be great difficulty for the residents.
The Divisional Road Engineer and the Police agree that we should not impose these waiting restrictions in that road, and the council was so informed in

August, 1956. So far we had heard nothing further from the council about it until my hon. Friend said this evening that it was about to approach us again. When it does, we shall look at this matter as sympathetically as we can, but we shall have to have in mind some of the problems that this question poses for my right hon. Friend's Department in particular, just as it poses problems for those who live in these streets. The short answer is to improve our main traffic routes, and to get on as quickly as we can with our road programme. If we can do that, I hope we shall quickly solve the problem.

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock on Wednesday evening and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at fourteen minutes past Twelve o'clock.